UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Processes and strategies used by normal and disabled readers in analogical reasoning Potter, Margaret 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A2 P67.pdf [ 10.33MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100946.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100946-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100946-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100946-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100946-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100946-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100946-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100946-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100946.ris

Full Text

PROCESSES AND STRATEGIES USED BY NORMAL AND DISABLED READERS I N ANALOGICAL REASONING BY MARGARET POTTER M.A.,  L a k e h e a d U n i v e r s i t y , 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA F e b r u a r y 1991  C) M a r g a r e t P o t t e r , 1991  Education  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may department or by  his or her  representatives.  be granted by the head of  It is understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my permission.  fs^ckolo^  Department of ff/iu^-f  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date <?/ -  DE-6 (2/88)  0/f. ~  /5~"  my  j SpetXoJ  fcdiA.CjxflOn  written  Abstract  The  purpose  disability  of  subtypes  this  study  was:  1)  to  identify  reading  among a sample of r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students  u s i n g two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n methods, 2) t o d i s c o v e r the p r o c e s s e s strategies  used  in  analogical  reasoning  by  individual  through  and  reading  d i s a b l e d and  n o n r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students  the method of  componential  a n a l y s i s , and 3) t o e x p l o r e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  the p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s used by d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s i n a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g and t h e i r membership i n a r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y  subtype.  In Phase 1 of the study, groups of normal and d i s a b l e d readers were  established using  Grade  5  students  attending  s c h o o l s i n a l a r g e urban area of Northwestern sample of 77 normal  students comprised  reader  sample  of  O n t a r i o . The d i s a b l e d  41 males and  2 0 students  elementary  3 6 females  comprised  7  and  males  and  the 13  females. In Phase 2, the d i s a b l e d and normal r e a d e r s were i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d the Boder T e s t of R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g P a t t e r n s (Boder & J a r r i c o , 1982), the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t - Revised (Dunn &  Dunn,  Reading  1981),  and  Difficulty  s u b t e s t s taken (Durrell  &  from  the  Catterson,  Durrell  1980) . The  P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s T e s t (Sternberg & R i f k i n , 1979) t o students i n s m a l l The  A n a l y s i s of  was  Schematic  administered  groups.  f i r s t method of subtyping, the Boder t e s t ,  f a i l e d to  identify  subtypes  students  were  among t h e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d sample because t h e  not as s e v e r e l y  d i s a b l e d as t h e c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d  sample f o r which t h e t e s t was designed.  The second method, which  employed a h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative technique o f c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s using  students'  variables,  scores  differentiated  obtained  on  t h e normal  23  reading  readers  from  and  related  the disabled  r e a d e r s . Three c l u s t e r s emerged when t h e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d data were a n a l y z e d alone t h a t were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i n t h e i r reading  skills.  Componential a n a l y s i s o f students' a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g  data  used mean s o l u t i o n l a t e n c y as t h e c r i t e r i o n o r dependent v a r i a b l e s . Independent  or  predictor  variables  systematically varied level  were  associated  of d i f f i c u l t y  o f each o f 24  b o o k l e t s . Seven models t h e o r i z e d by Sternberg to  each  individual's  analysis  booklet  s c o r e s through  and t h e p r e f e r r e d model chosen  determined  criteria  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  with  the  analogy  (1977) were  fitted  multiple regression  according  to five  pre-  1979).  D i s a b l e d readers were grouped a c c o r d i n g t o t h e processes and s t r a t e g i e s they used i n s o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s . The normal reader group s o l v e d a n a l o g i e s as p r e d i c t e d but t h e r e was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between membership i n a r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y analogy  subgroup.  None  of  the  cluster analogy  and membership subgroups  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r r e a d i n g performance although t h a t used t h e most e f f i c i e n t model tended  i n an  could  be  t h e subgroup  t o have h i g h e r  ability  than t h e o t h e r subgroups. C o r r e l a t i o n s between s o l u t i o n l a t e n c y and  iv r e a d i n g and  r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s f o r the normal r e a d e r s  showed t h a t  the more p r o f i c i e n t a n a l o g i c a l reasoners were f a s t e r , more a c c u r a t e readers and b e t t e r comprehenders. Few s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were detected  between s o l u t i o n  disabled  readers.  The  l a t e n c y and  r e a d i n g v a r i a b l e s f o r the  l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two  the most s u r p r i s i n g  and  suggested  occurred  that  irrespective  this  of  the  paradoxical finding  cluster  a n a l o g i e s i n a unique way,  because to  with  to the  form  suggest  which  of the  t h a t the  reading-disabled  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning  micro l e v e l ,  study.  they  belong,  It is  children, may  solve  or because the bottom-up, c o n t e n t - d r i v e n  top-down, c o n t e n t - f r e e nature  level  of the  reading-disabled  nature of the r e a d i n g t a s k i s so fundamentally  Other e x p l a n a t i o n s  systems i s perhaps  d i f f e r e n t from the  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning use  clusters  of measures a t masks any  subgroups formed by  or t h a t component p r o c e s s i n g  i s so  task.  a macro  relationship measures at a  specific  to  the  i n d i v i d u a l t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s are b u r i e d w i t h i n the subtypes i m p l y i n g the e x i s t e n c e of subtypes w i t h i n subtypes. Some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n are d i s c u s s e d .  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  i i  LIST OF TABLES  viii  LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s D i f f e r e n t i a l Approach I n f o r m a t i o n - P r o c e s s i n g Approach The Subtyping Approach Componential A n a l y s i s O u t l i n e o f t h e Study CHAPTER I I : REVIEW OF LITERATURE Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s Models o f Reading S p e c i f i c i t y o f Reading D e f i c i t s Decoding Phonological Awareness Deficits Short-Term Memory D e f i c i t s Speech P e r c e p t i o n D e f i c i t s Name R e t r i e v a l D e f i c i t s Comprehension Use o f Context Short-Term Memory Metacognition Limitations of the Information-Processing Approach Summary o f I n f o r m a t i o n - P r o c e s s i n g Theory and Research Subtyping Research The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f Boder S t a t i s t i c a l Methods Q-Type F a c t o r A n a l y s i s Hierarchical Agglomerative Techniques L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Subtyping Approach  X , . . . . x i i xiii 1 1 2 3 5 7 8 11 11 13 16 16 16 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 28 28 35 50  vi Componential A n a l y s i s A p p l i c a t i o n o f Componential A n a l y s i s Sternberg's Triarch Theory of Intelligence Summary o f Componential A n a l y s i s : Theory and Research  52 57 73 77  CHAPTER I I I : PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Research Questions and Hypotheses  79 85  CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY Phase 1 Target P o p u l a t i o n Instruments Used Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Canadian Cognitive Ability Test Procedure Data P r e p a r a t i o n Phase 2 S e l e c t i o n o f Samples Instruments Used Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t - Revised The Boder Test o f ReadingS p e l l i n g Patterns Durrell Analysis o f Reading Difficulty Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s Design Procedure A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Reading and Related Tests Administration o f the Schematic Analogies Test Scoring Data P r e p a r a t i o n  90 90 90 91 91 93 95 97 99 99 102 102 103 107 110 116 118 Picture  118 119 121 123  CHAPTER V: RESULTS 12 6 Reading Typology 12 6 The Boder T e s t o f R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g P a t t e r n s . . . . 127 Cluster Analysis 127 Box-and-Whisker P l o t s 12 9 A Comparison o f R e a d i n g - D i s a b i l i t y C l u s t e r s . 132 Summary o f C l u s t e r s 145  vii Componential A n a l y s i s I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e Data I n d i v i d u a l Regression A n a l y s i s I n d i v i d u a l A n a l y s i s o f Group D I n d i v i d u a l A n a l y s i s o f Group N A n a l y s i s a t t h e Group L e v e l Use o f Components Use o f t h e L i n e a r Combination Rule Use of Exhaustive versus Self-terminating Mode S o l u t i o n Scores C a l c u l a t i o n o f Component Scores Summary o f Componential A n a l y s i s The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A n a l o g i c a l Reasoning and Reading and Reading-Related S k i l l s Cluster Membership Versus Model Subgroup Membership A Comparison of Reading-Disability Model Subgroups Summary o f Model Subgroups Correlations Between Analogy Data and Reading Data C o r r e l a t i o n s W i t h i n group N C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Model Subgroups . . . Summary  14 5 14 5 147 150 151 155 155 157 158 159 159 164 166 166 166 179 182 183 185 186  CHAPTER V I : DISCUSSION 187 Reading Typology 187 Componential A n a l y s i s 188 R e g r e s s i o n Models: Components and S t r a t e g i e s . 189 Component Scores 193 The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A n a l o g i c a l Reasoning and Reading 194 F a c t o r s U n d e r l y i n g S t r a t e g y Choice 196 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study 199 Conclusion 2 01 Suggestions f o r Future Research 2 04 REFERENCES  206  viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1  Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d by Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  30  2  Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s and h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative techniques  41  3 4  Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a b l e s and h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative techniques  . . .  46  Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l and/or language v a r i a b l e s and h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative techniques  49  5  Sternberg's  63  6  Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , age, nonverbal a b i l i t y , and r e a d i n g comprehension f o r grade 5 students  7  t h e o r e t i c a l models  Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , age, nonverbal  ability,  . .  98  and  r e a d i n g comprehension f o r Group D and Group N . 101 8  The subtypes of Boder  105  9  Predictor variables for regression  114  10  Models f o r Regression  115  11  R e g r e s s i o n equations  117  12  A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e among r e a d i n g  disability  c l u s t e r s on r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s .  .  .13 0  13  Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s for criterion variables  14 6  14  S u b j e c t s i n Group D w i t h p r e f e r r e d Model 4M  152  15  S u b j e c t s i n Group D w i t h p r e f e r r e d Model 1M  153  16  S u b j e c t s i n Group N who p r e f e r r e d Models 4M and 1M Model f i t s f o r Group N and model subgroups w i t h i n Group D D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s on c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s f o r model subgroups w i t h i n group D  17 18  154 156 160  ix Table 19  20 21  Component l a t e n c i e s c a l c u l a t e d from p r e f e r r e d r e g r e s s i o n models f o r subgroups w i t h i n Group D  162  Frequency t a b l e between c l u s t e r s and analogy subgroups  167  C o r r e l a t i o n o f observed s o l u t i o n times (CV1) w i t h a b i l i t y , r e a d i n g , and r e l a t e d variables  184  X  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Picture analogies  59  2  Schematic P i c t u r e Analogy  3  Overlap o f box and whisker p l o t s  131  4  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Decoding v a r i a b l e s  13 3  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Vocabulary component v a r i a b l e  134  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Reading Comprehension v a r i a b l e s  135  5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Reading Rate component v a r i a b l e s  61  . . . .13 6  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l r e a d i n g time v a r i a b l e s  138  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l comprehension v a r i a b l e s  139  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l o r a l reading e r r o r v a r i a b l e s  14 0  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l o r a l reading e r r o r v a r i a b l e s : t o t a l e r r o r s , t o t a l s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s , and proportion self-corrected  14 3  Box and whisker p l o t s on v e r b a l and nonverbal a b i l i t y variables  144  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on SDRT Decoding component v a r i a b l e s  169  14  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on SDRT Vocabulary component v a r i a b l e . . . .17 0  15  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on SDRT Reading Comprehension component variable  172  xi Figure 16 17 18 19 20  21  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on SDRT Reading Rate component v a r i a b l e  . . .  173  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on D u r r e l l r e a d i n g time v a r i a b l e s  174  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on D u r r e l l comprehension v a r i a b l e s  17 6  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on D u r r e l l o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s v a r i a b l e s  . . . 177  Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on D u r r e l l o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r v a r i a b l e s : t o t a l errors, t o t a l self-corrected errors, and percentage s e l f - c o r r e c t e d Box and whisker p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups on v e r b a l and nonverbal a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s  18 0 .  .181  xii  LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A  Letter  B  Screening c h e c k l i s t  C  Schematic  D  Cards used t o i n s t r u c t students i n s o l v i n g Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s T a b l e l i s t i n g c l u s t e r membership, Boder s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s , and CV1 and CV2 model p r e f e r e n c e f o r Group D and Group N  E  o f consent  Picture  219 f o r teachers  Analogy  Booklet  222 224 229 231  xiii  ACKNOWLE DGEMENT I am indebted t o t h e members o f my committee f o r t h e i r advice and support t h a t enabled me t o c a r r y out t h i s study. Dr. Ron Jarman who encouraged Marian  my  interest  i n t h e work o f R.J. Sternberg, Dr.  Porath who helped me prepare  f o r t h e o r a l defence,  and my  chairman Dr. David K e n d a l l , who supported me a c r o s s t h e m i l e s and was  never t o o busy t o g i v e me a d v i c e o r answer my q u e s t i o n s . The  i n i t i a l e f f o r t s o f Dr. Todd Rogers, who c o n t r i b u t e d many hours o f h e l p and e x p e r t i s e b e f o r e moving t o t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , a r e a l s o acknowledged. I am g r a t e f u l t o Dr. R.J. Sternberg who gave me p e r m i s s i o n t o use t h e Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s and s u p p l i e d me with  the t e s t .  Research  I am  Council  administration,  who  also gave  grateful me  a  to the Ontario research  and t o the  t e a c h e r s , and students o f t h e Board o f E d u c a t i o n  who made t h e study p o s s i b l e . L a s t l y , Bill,  grant,  Educational  I wish t o thank my husband,  f o r h i s l o v e and encouragement t h a t enabled me t o b r i n g t h i s  d i s s e r t a t i o n t o i t s completion.  1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION  Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s  For almost a hundred years, p a r e n t s , educators, p s y c h o l o g i s t s , physicians, children  and n e u r o l o g i s t s have w r e s t l e d w i t h  who  have  adequate  intelligence  t h e problem o f  but, f o r a v a r i e t y o f  reasons, experience d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g t o read. Downing and Leong (1982)  described  these  children  as  "reading-disabled."  It is  e s t i m a t e d t h a t i n E n g l i s h speaking c o u n t r i e s , t h i s group forms t e n to  twelve  percent  o f school-age  children  and t h a t w i t h i n  their  ranks t h e r e a r e as many as t e n p e r c e n t who a r e s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d readers  (Downing & Leong, 1982).  Reading decoding  words.  information lexicon  disabled  from  This  children is  experience  "the process  word  units  i s activated,  thus  so t h a t  a  resulting  of  a  major  difficulty  extracting  location  enough  i n t h e mental  i n semantic  information  becoming a v a i l a b l e t o the c o n s c i o u s n e s s " (Stanovich, 1982a, p.486). Decoding d i f f i c u l t i e s become apparent e a r l y i n t h e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d child's  s c h o o l performance  and i n l a t e r  school years  the c h i l d  e x p e r i e n c e s d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h r e a d i n g comprehension. A l a r g e amount of  r e s e a r c h has attempted  t o i d e n t i f y t h e u n d e r l y i n g sources o f  i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p r o c e s s e s t h a t mediate word decoding and t e x t comprehension. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h has f o l l o w e d e i t h e r  2 the  differential  or  the  information-processing  approach.  d i f f e r e n t i a l approach i s so named because i t i s based on the of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a s k performance. Using achievement v a r i a b l e s , the variation  in  behaviour.  information-processing  focus  In  i s d i r e c t e d at  direct  approach  t h a t i s c r e a t e d by m a n i p u l a t i o n  contrast,  focuses  on  The study  aptitude  or  interindividual  the  cognitive  intragroup  or  variation  of treatment or t a s k v a r i a b l e s .  D i f f e r e n t i a l Approach  The  differential  approach  produced  factor  analysis,  procedure which attempts t o i d e n t i f y common v a r i a n c e s variables. reading  The  a p p l i c a t i o n of  disabilities  has  factor analysis  traditionally  to  focused  among many  the on  study  One  used  Scale  test,  the  C h i l d r e n (Wechsler, 1949, theoretical  constructs,  1974) verbal  Wechsler  of  individual  d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y and r e a d i n g s k i l l s . intelligence  a  Intelligence  widely for  has been c o n s t r u c t e d t o measure two and  visual-perceptual  abilities.  F a c t o r a n a l y s i s has been used t o c l u s t e r the s u b t e s t s of t h i s t e s t further, acquired  t o form s u b a b i l i t i e s knowledge,  (Bannatyne,  1974)  organization,  and  spatial and  freedom  such as: v e r b a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , ability,  verbal  and  sequencing  comprehension,  from d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y  with a discrepancy  i n one  perceptual  (Kaufman,  There have been attempts t o l i n k l e a r n i n g and r e a d i n g  ability  1975).  disabilities  or more of these areas. However, Kavale  3 and  Forness  (1987) c l a i m t h a t t h e r e  i s no  e m p i r i c a l support  for  this. As  f a r as r e a d i n g i s concerned, t e s t s have been c o n s t r u c t e d  which measure r e a d i n g s u b s k i l l s such as: p h o n e t i c decoding,  reading  speed,  and  comprehension  a n a l y s i s , word (e.g.  D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t ; D u r r e l l A n a l y s i s of Reading  Stanford  Difficulty).  These t e s t s were s t a n d a r d i z e d u s i n g the s c o r e s of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples of c h i l d r e n and  are now  used d i a g n o s t i c a l l y t o determine  s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of poor r e a d e r s .  Information-Processing  Approach  The i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g paradigm has produced a methodology in  which  variables  are  manipulated  within  tasks  to  establish  i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y . " G r e a t l y s i m p l i f i e d , the i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approach  i s conceptualized  transformed, (Swanson,  as  a  reduced, e l a b o r a t e d ,  1987a, p.3).  One  study  of  how  sensory  stored, retrieved  important  idea  and  input  is  used..."  associated with  this  approach i s t h a t c o g n i t i v e processes take time and t h a t the amount of time can i n d i c a t e how  much i n f o r m a t i o n i s processed  (Sternberg,  1969). Information-processing with  constructs  Samuels  & Miller,  such  as  1985),  Massaro, 1979), decoding  s t u d i e s have examined t a s k s a s s o c i a t e d attention perception,  (LaBerge  &  (Massaro,  ( F r e d e r i k s e n , 1978;  Samuels, 1975;  1974;  Venezky  Samuels, LaBerge, &  &  4 Bremer, 1978), memory (Stanovich, 1988; V e l l u t i n o , 1979), language (Shankweiler Spector,  &  1981;  Liberman,  1976),  and  Samuels & E i s e n b e r g ,  posited  to  link  a  reading  disabilities.  comprehension  (Calfee  &  1981). Hypotheses have been  cognitive d e f i c i t  i n one  of  these  areas  to  Word decoding and r e a d i n g comprehension have r e c e i v e d a g r e a t deal  of  attention.  difficulties,  In  a  review  Stanovich  of  (1982a)  the  research  concluded  d i f f e r e n c e s i n decoding a b i l i t y were accounted processes.  In  a  similar  Stanovich  (1982b)  review  found  that  r e l a t e d not o n l y t o inadequate  of  their  differential  limitations.  and  The  decoding individual  f o r by p h o n o l o g i c a l  comprehension  difficulties,  difficulties  skills,  s y n t a c t i c a b i l i t i e s and g e n e r a l m e t a c o g n i t i v e The  that  comprehension  decoding  into  were  but t o d e f i c i e n t  strategies.  i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approaches have  failure  t o d i s c o v e r or  explicate  mental  p r o c e s s e s and the i n a b i l i t y t o d i s c o v e r components of i n t e l l i g e n c e that  exist  within individuals  differential, relationship  factor of  analytic  these  are  the major  approach  limitations  to  limitations  of  the  1977) .  The  include:  the  (Sternberg, education  i n a b i l i t y of the approach t o d e f i n e mental p r o c e s s e s necessary f o r learning,  the  failure  academic t a s k s , and  the  to  identify  inability  subprocesses  that  underlie  t o p r o v i d e a l i n k between  the  t h e o r y of c o g n i t i v e processes i n l e a r n i n g and classroom i n s t r u c t i o n (Wagner & Sternberg,  1984).  L i m i t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g  5 approach i n c l u d e : the i n a b i l i t y of the method t o p r o v i d e the means f o r systematic in  task  study  of the c o r r e l a t e s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  performance,  lack  of  common  language  across  tasks  and  a c r o s s i n v e s t i g a t o r s , and an i n a b i l i t y t o prevent the o v e r v a l u a t i o n of t a s k - s p e c i f i c components t h a t have no g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t o other tasks  (Sternberg,  1977).  The  For  many  years  Subtyping  Approach  researchers  attempted  to  discover  the  u n d e r l y i n g cause of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . I n i t i a l l y , they examined reading  skills  identify  a  disorder.  and  s i n g l e s e t of So  causal  many d i f f e r e n t  (1982) suggested, one  neuropsychological  processes  i n an  f a c t o r s t h a t would  explain  t h e o r i e s were proposed  "Each of the  effort  that  circles,  of  the  term  "dyslexia". Originally  coined  unexpected r e a d i n g f a i l u r e i n i n d i v i d u a l s of normal it  has  been used t o  associated observation  with that  describe  reading the  disabilities.  term  o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n and  many d i f f e r e n t  is  serves  "not little  This  to  The  i n some describe  intelligence,  groups  of  has  led  susceptible purpose"  found  (p.47).  s i n g l e cause t h e o r i e s have a l s o l e d t o i n d i s c r i m i n a t e use,  the  Harris  s i n g l e - c a u s e proponents has  p a r t of what i s r e a l l y a very complex s i t u a t i o n "  to  to  symptoms to  the  precise  (Rutter,  1978,  p.5) . The m a j o r i t y of r e s e a r c h e r s now  accept t h a t r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d  6 children  form  Malatesha  & Dougan, 1982; Rourke, 1985; Satz  the  fifteen  last  reading  a  heterogeneous  t o twenty y e a r s ,  disabilities  Subtyping  i s an  group  has  attempt  to find  them.  observation of  Early  subtyping  methodology.  groups  within  i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g causes. I t  techniques  included  1977; Johnson & Myklebust,  reading/spelling errors  (Boder,  1973),  clinical  1967), a n a l y s i s  and p r o f i l e  analysis  u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s ( M a t t i s , 1978; M a t t i s , & Rapin,  a  s u b j e c t s a c c o r d i n g t o some commonality  subtyping  (Denckla,  f o r t h e cause o f  homogeneous  heterogeneous d i s o r d e r and thereby  among  on  e t a l . , 19 81;  & M o r r i s , 1981). In  the search  centred  i s c a r r i e d out by grouping  (Doehring  French,  1975).  In t h e l a s t  decade, the m a j o r i t y o f s u b t y p i n g  r e s e a r c h has  i n v o l v e d t h e use o f s t a t i s t i c a l techniques termed c l u s t e r analyses (Morris, single  Blashfield,  & Satz,  method but a v a r i e t y  1981).  C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s i s not a  of techniques.  One type  of c l u s t e r  a n a l y s i s known as Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s has been used by Doehring and his  colleagues  Bryans, (Fisk  (Doehring  1979; Doehring & Rourke,  analyzes  & Hoshko,  Hoshko,  &  e t a l . , 1981) and Rourke and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  1979; Petruskas  correlations  1977; Doehring,  among  & Rourke,  subjects  1979).  and produces  This  method  factors  d e s c r i b e groups o f s u b j e c t s r a t h e r than groups o f t e s t s  that  (Kavale &  Forness, 1987). Although popular f o r a w h i l e , Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s no  longer  used  as  much  as  other  p a r t i c u l a r , h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative  methods  of  techniques  clustering. seem t o be  In  7 preferred 1987;  (Feagans & Appelbaum, 1986; Lyon & Watson, 1981;  Speece, McKinney,  & Appelbaum,  1985;  Spreen  Speece,  & Haaf,  1986;  Swanson, 1988). What s u b t y p i n g r e s e a r c h has shown i s t h a t r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s do not form a u n i t a r y d i s o r d e r . However, none o f the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n techniques  used  so  f a r has  been  able  to discover  the  c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s used by subgroups readers.  Subtyping  appears  to  have  reached  an  of disabled  impasse.  t e c h n i q u e s have been unable t o generate a model o f r e a d i n g and no new  methodology  internal  The  failure  has emerged t o r e d r e s s the l i m i t a t i o n s .  Componential  Analysis  In 1977, S t e r n b e r g proposed a component t h e o r y o f i n t e l l i g e n c e based  upon  the  idea  that  s e p a r a b l e mental  processes  underlie  i n t e l l i g e n t behaviour. The e x e c u t i o n o f mental p r o c e s s e s takes time and  Sternberg theorized  that  i t was  possible  to  identify  the  p r o c e s s e s used i n a problem s o l v i n g t a s k by b r e a k i n g the t a s k i n t o stages,  measuring  the  interval  of time  taken t o  complete  each  stage, p e r f o r m i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s on the i n t e r v a l s c o r e s , and comparing  the  regression  equations  obtained  with  theoretical  first  applied  models. This  method  o f componential  analysis  was  a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g . The t a s k was broken i n t o stages through a  to  8 method o f p r e c u i n g and the time taken t o complete each stage  was  r e c o r d e d . S e v e r a l models were d e v i s e d t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the theory  and  analogies  indicated and  (Sternberg,  the  order  component and  mode  1977). M u l t i v a r i a t e  model b e s t f i t t e d p r e f e r e n c e and at  the  processes  i n which  analysis  used  they  was  in  were  used  to  solving executed  see  which  the data. S t u d i e s showed a f a i r l y uniform model  c o n s i s t e n t use of mental p r o c e s s e s and  the a d u l t l e v e l  (Sternberg, 1977;  strategies  S t e r n b e r g & N i g r o , 1980).  One a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g t a s k , i n i t i a l l y used w i t h u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s , was  adapted  f o r use w i t h  school c h i l d r e n  (Sternberg &  R i f k i n , 1979). A n a l o g i e s i n p i c t u r e form were p r e s e n t e d t o c h i l d r e n in  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d b o o k l e t s , e n a b l i n g them t o be t e s t e d i n  groups. No s p e c i a l equipment was r e q u i r e d and i t was p r a c t i c a l even w i t h v e r y young c h i l d r e n because no r e a d i n g was  involved. Results  i n d i c a t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n use the same components as a d u l t s ; however, consistency  in  their  develops w i t h age  use  of  mental  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  components  and  strategies  1979).  O u t l i n e of the Study  The purpose of t h i s study was subtype  analysis  s t r a t e g i e s used  and by  t r y to  t o go beyond the l i m i t a t i o n s of  identify  the  mental  processes  subgroups of r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students  and  i n an  a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g t a s k . I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t a comparison of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h the behaviours t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d each  9 subgroup would enable  d i s a b l e d readers  and would p r o v i d e more s p e c i f i c source  of the  reading  further  classified  i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the  underlying  disability  t o be  - i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t would prove  i n v a l u a b l e i n p l a n n i n g a remedial program. This  study  attempted  cognitive  approach  analysis.  The  readers  subjective Patterns  through  first  using  two  to  step  combine  the  was  use  to  using  of  differential  Sternberg's  identify  classification  techniques  the  Boder's  the  componential  subgroups  methods.  with  of d i s a b l e d  One  method  of  Reading/Spelling  Test  involved  (Boder & J a r r i c o , 1982), the other i n v o l v e d a s t a t i s t i c a l  method of c l u s t e r i n g  students  using  reading  and  reading-related  variables. C a l f e e (1977) had t h e o r i z e d t h a t when they read, students make use o f a s e t o f independent c o g n i t i v e and language s k i l l s , reading  i s carried  out  proposed t h a t Sternberg's discover  the  components  in  a  series  be  made up  doubted  that  and  s t r a t e g i e s used  subprocesses.  of r e l a t i v e l y reading  He  stages.  could  suggested,  "The  be  in  a  reading  acknowledging t h a t  independent  skills,  divided  interplay  bottom-up p r o c e s s i n g cannot be handled analysis"  independent  He  componential a n a l y s i s c o u l d be used t o  ( C a l f e e & Drum, 1979). However, w h i l e may  of  so t h a t  Rispens  into  task  reading (1982)  independent  between top-down  adequately  and  i n componential  (p.187).  Swanson  (1987b)  suggested  that  reading  research  d i r e c t e d towards i d e n t i f y i n g the mental processes  should  required i n  be  10 completing listed as  selected  criteria  follows:  classroom  tasks.  f o r s e l e c t i n g such t a s k s  1)  a  task  be  selected  information-processing  literature;  theoretical  rationale  and  mechanisms;  3)  children;  and  He  i t must 4)  be  must  that  has  the  task  assess  the t a s k must be  previously  (Gadow & Swanson,  2)  adaptable  summarized  a  history  must  elementary  to  moderately  related  and  1986) in  have  a  processing handicapped  interrelated  to a  number of academic t a s k s . Componential a n a l y s i s of the p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s t a s k used Sternberg  and  requirements.  Rifkin  (1979) appears t o  Analogical  reasoning  has  fulfil been  a l l of  Swanson's  investigated  w r i t t e n about a t l e n g t h i n the i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g  by  and  literature;  componential a n a l y s i s can s p e c i f y the mental components used i n the a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g t a s k ; the p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s are s u i t a b l e f o r reading-disabled  children;  measure of i n t e l l e c t u a l  and  the  task  i s considered  f u n c t i o n i n g (see Sternberg,  to  1977).  be  a  11 CHAPTER I I : REVIEW OF  LITERATURE  Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s  With r e f e r e n c e t o a r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n as d e f i n e d by Downing and was  Leong  (1982), the term " g a r d e n - v a r i e t y "  used by S t a n o v i c h  poor  readers  (1988) t o d i s t i n g u i s h the group of g e n e r a l l y  d i s a b l e d readers from a s m a l l e r , more s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d group. The terms  "specific  retardation",  and  interchangeably readers  reading  "developmental  the  constitutes  "specific  dyslexia",  have  reading been  used  t o denote the s m a l l e r group of s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d  (Benton, 1978;  Over  disability",  Downing & Leong, 1982).  years  there  a specific  has  reading  been  disagreement  disability.  The  as  criteria  to  what  used  to  s e l e c t r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d students f o r r e s e a r c h purposes (based upon the  definition  (Waites,  of d y s l e x i a of the World F e d e r a t i o n  1968)) have tended t o be e x c l u s i o n a r y . G e n e r a l l y , t o  considered  to  have  a  "specific  reading  disability"  r e a d i n g f a i l u r e c o u l d not be a t t r i b u t e d t o inadequate poor  sight  emotional  or  or  hearing,  social  adequate i n s t r u c t i o n judge these there  has  of Neurology  neurological  problems, (Ellis,  social  or  physical  disadvantage,  a  be  student's  intelligence, impairment, or  lack  of  1985). However, the c r i t e r i a used to  e x c l u s i o n a r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have v a r i e d g r e a t l y and been  a  tendency  i n s t r u c t i o n a given.  to  automatically  consider  adequate  12 Many  researchers  exclusion.  Rutter  have  (1978)  been  displeased  r e f e r r e d to  the  Neurology d e f i n i t i o n  of d y s l e x i a (Waites,  despair"  part  (p.12).  As  T a y l o r , Satz, and F r i e l e x i s t e d between two academic  tasks  and  of  the  with  World  1968)  Florida  diagnosis  by  Federation  of  "a counsel  of  as  Longitudinal  Project,  (1979) were a b l e t o show t h a t no d i f f e r e n c e  groups of d i s a b l e d readers on a wide range of familial  v a r i a b l e s . One  group  was  selected  a c c o r d i n g t o the World F e d e r a t i o n of Neurology d e f i n i t i o n and o t h e r was  the  a n o n d y s l e x i c group.  Sporn (1981) questioned the e x c l u s i o n of c h i l d r e n from low backgrounds and, u s i n g Boder's (1973) method of subtyping, was to who  show t h a t subtypes of d y s l e x i a e x i s t e d among d i s a b l e d were e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y disadvantaged.  subtyping Doehring  methods and  of  Hoshko  Mattis  et  (1977)  al.  to  SES able  readers  Dorman (1987) m o d i f i e d the (1975),  Boder  accommodate  the  (1973),  and  neurological  d i s o r d e r s of 50 c h i l d r e n aged 11 t o 19 years s e l e c t e d from the i n and  out-patient  populations  of  a  hospital  and  school  for  orthopaedically  handicapped. These c h i l d r e n were handicapped  cerebral palsy,  spina b i f i d a ,  or muscular dystrophy  f o u r were c o n f i n e d t o w h e e l c h a i r s . were d i s a b l e d readers, was  Twenty-five  and  the by  a l l but  of these c h i l d r e n  the remainder were normal r e a d e r s . Dorman  a b l e t o show t h a t subtypes,  s i m i l a r t o those of M a t t i s e t a l .  (1975), Boder (1973), and Doehring and Hoshko (1977), e x i s t e d among t h i s n e u r o l o g i c a l l y handicapped sample of d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . A r e p o r t of R u t t e r and Yule (1975) seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the  13 incidence  of s p e c i f i c  populations  reading-disabled  students  i n school-aged  formed a "hump" a t t h e lower end o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  of r e a d i n g s c o r e s . T h i s i m p l i e d t h a t the d i s o r d e r formed a d i s c r e t e entity. Foltz,  However, more r e c e n t 1985; Scarborough,  studies  (Olson,  1984; Seidenburg,  Kleigl, Bruck,  Backman, 1985; Share, McGee, McKenzie, W i l l i a m s , suggested t h a t subpopulation  s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d readers  Davidson, & Fornarolo,  &  & S i l v a , 1987)  do not form a d i s t i n c t  but a r e p a r t o f t h e normal continuum. I t was thought  t h a t t h e "hump" o f R u t t e r and Yule (1975) c o u l d be caused by f l o o r and  ceiling effects Ellis  i n r e a d i n g scores  (Share e t a l . , 1987).  (1985) r e j e c t e d the model o f s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y  which views i t as a d i s e a s e r a t h e r l i k e measles t h a t one e i t h e r has or does not have. He compared i t i n s t e a d w i t h  o b e s i t y which i s a  matter o f degree r a t h e r than k i n d . The p r e v a l e n c e dependent upon a r b i t r a r y  criteria; similarly,  t h e prevalence  s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y , " w i l l depend e n t i r e l y l i n e i s drawn" ( E l l i s ,  of obesity i s of  upon where t h e  1985, p.172).  Models o f Reading  LaBerge and Samuels (1974) t h e o r i z e d a d a t a - d r i v e n o r bottomup model o f r e a d i n g which c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e memory systems: v i s u a l , phonological,  and semantic.  The g r a p h i c  input,  c o n s i s t i n g of  l e t t e r s o r words, i s recoded i n t o v i s u a l , p h o n o l o g i c a l , o r semantic representations  and compared with  information already stored i n  14 the a p p r o p r i a t e memory. The model i s f l e x i b l e and  allows o p t i o n a l  r ou te s between graphemic i n p u t and v e r b a l comprehension. A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s model, each reader has a f i x e d c a p a c i t y f o r processing  information.  automaticity decoding  Good  readers  i n decoding v i s u a l  skills  enable  them  to  achieve  information devote  a  high  degree  of  and  these  automatic  of  their  available  most  a t t e n t i o n t o comprehending what they have read. On the other hand, poor readers who  have not a c q u i r e d t h i s a u t o m a t i c i t y need t o devote  most of t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o decoding and have l i t t l e c a p a c i t y  left  f o r comprehension. In c o n t r a s t t o t h i s model are the top-down or models (Goodman, 1968;  Smith, 1971). Goodman (1968) d e s c r i b e d h i s  model of r e a d i n g as a "problem-solving" is  depicted  as  concept-driven  guess work. Smith  analogue i n which r e a d i n g  (1971) t h e o r i z e d  that  comprehension i s f a c i l i t a t e d by redundancy - the use of  reading  nonvisual  i n f o r m a t i o n t o reduce the amount of v i s u a l p r o c e s s i n g . T h i s means t h a t the f l u e n t reader uses knowledge of language s t r u c t u r e as w e l l as s y n t a c t i c and semantic cues t o make guesses about the t e x t . The reader then checks a few v i s u a l f e a t u r e s t o see i f the guesses are r i g h t . In o t h e r words, f l u e n t readers are d e p i c t e d as r e a d i n g only as much of the t e x t as they need i n order t o comprehend. These models  bottom-up  i n that  they  and  top-down models  assume r e a d i n g  takes  are  serial  place  in a  processing s e r i e s of  s e q u e n t i a l l y ordered p r o c e s s e s . The i n t e r a c t i v e model of Rumelhart (1977) t h e o r i z e d t h a t decoding and comprehension take  place  15 s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and are r e c i p r o c a l events. He p o s i t e d f o u r sources o f knowledge t h a t the reader uses t o comprehend the t e x t : knowledge of  spelling  p a t t e r n s , knowledge of words, knowledge o f  p a t t e r n s , and knowledge of semantic  sentence  meaning. A l l f o u r sources can  be a c t i v a t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and i n t e r a c t i v e l y . The model o f C a l f e e (1977) c o n s i s t s o f independent stages t h a t intervene  between  the v i s u a l  input  and  the v e r b a l  output.  The  p r o c e s s i n g o f each stage i s t h e o r i z e d t o take a c e r t a i n amount of time  so t h a t t o t a l  reading  time  i s the sum  o f the independent  s t a g e s . Each stage i s a f f e c t e d by f a c t o r s s p e c i f i c t o t h a t stage. C a l f e e gave as an example, the t a s k of r e a d i n g a l i s t o f words f o r later  recall.  T h i s t a s k was  theorized to consist  o f two  stages:  r e a d i n g and o r g a n i z i n g . T o t a l r e a c t i o n time would c o n s i s t o f the sum  o f these  independent p r o c e s s e s .  To c o n f i r m  independence, i t  would be necessary t o show l a c k of i n t e r a c t i o n between the f a c t o r s and  the time  parameters  should  show  up  as  main  effects.  Any  i n t e r a c t i o n between the f a c t o r s would imply t h a t the processes were not s e p a r a b l e and should be t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e complex. In r e v i e w i n g  the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses o f t h e i r  earlier  model, Samuels and LaBerge (1983) proposed a feedback loop be added to  the  model.  The  feedback  i n f o r m a t i o n i n semantic  loop  was  designed  memory, the l a s t component  to  changes  the model  i n t e r a c t i v e one.  from  a  serial  processing  how  i n the system,  c o u l d a i d the p r o c e s s i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n the o t h e r This  show  components. model  to  an  16 S p e c i f i c i t y o f Reading D e f i c i t s  Beginning  readers  concentrate  on decoding  words.  As  their  s k i l l s become more automatic and f l u e n c y develops, t h e a t t e n t i o n of  good  readers  struggle  to  i s focused  decode  s u c c e s s f u l they f a i l Researchers  have  on comprehension. D i s a b l e d  words.  They  do  t o comprehend  examined  so  slowly  when  and comprehension s k i l l s i n  order t o discover a b r a i n / c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t  specificity"  even  a t t h e l e v e l o f good r e a d e r s .  decoding  The concept o f such a d e f i c i t  and  readers  i n one s p e c i f i c area.  has been named t h e "assumption of  (Stanovich, 1986).  Decoding  P h o n o l o g i c a l Awareness  Phonological recognize syllables  initial  Deficits  awareness sounds  is  exhibited  i n words,  in  to identify  the  ability  to  t h e number o f  and phonemes i n spoken words, and t o match and c r e a t e  rhyming words. Research i n d i c a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t s who d i s p l a y poor p h o n o l o g i c a l awareness i n p r e s c h o o l and the e a r l y grades a r e more likely exhibit  t o have good  later  reading  phonological  difficulties  awareness.  than  For  Shankweiler, Liberman, Fowler, and F i s c h e r  their  example,:  peers  who  Liberman,  (1977) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t  c h i l d r e n who c o u l d not t a p out t h e number o f sounds i n spoken  17 words a t s i x y e a r s of age were performing a t the lower end of t h e i r class  i n r e a d i n g by  B r a d l e y and Bryant identify  the  the  time  they  were  i n grade  2.  Similarly  (1985) found t h a t the a b i l i t y of p r e r e a d e r s t o  initial  sound i n spoken words and  t o match rhyming  words c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h l a t e r r e a d i n g achievement. Fox and Routh  (1980),  segmentation  who  test,  t e s t e d a group of f i r s t found  that  average  g r a d e r s on a word readers  performed  p r o f i c i e n t l y whereas poor r e a d e r s d i d b a d l y . Two y e a r s l a t e r , when the  students  were  i n grade  3,  the  word  segmentation  test  was  repeated (Fox & Routh, 1983) . A l l the students were a b l e t o segment words  into  phonemes  but  by  this  time  many  of  those  who  were  o r i g i n a l l y poor r e a d e r s had become s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . The  q u e s t i o n has been r a i s e d as t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  r e a d i n g and p h o n o l o g i c a l awareness. B r a d l e y and Bryant (1983, showed t h a t over a two-year p e r i o d , t r a i n i n g s i x - and old  1985)  seven-year-  c h i l d r e n t o group one s y l l a b l e words a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r sounds  rather  than  their  meaning p l a c e d them approximately  s i x months  ahead of a c o n t r o l group i n r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g s k i l l s .  However,  Fox and Routh (1984) found t h a t t r a i n i n g k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n t o segment  and  recognition.  blend Some  words  had  researchers  little believe  effect the  on  later  word  relationship  is  r e c i p r o c a l and t h a t c h i l d r e n do not develop awareness of sounds i n words u n t i l they are faced w i t h words i n p r i n t & Share,  1983.  (Ehri,  1979;  Jorm  T h i s p o s i t i o n i s supported by the study o f Morais,  Cary, A l g e r i a , and B e r t e l s o n (1979) i n which a d u l t s who  had  just  18 l e a r n e d t o read were shown t o have b e t t e r p h o n o l o g i c a l  awareness  than a d u l t s who had never l e a r n e d t o read.  Short-Term Memory D e f i c i t s  Although not a l l poor readers have short-term memory d e f i c i t s , poor r e a d e r s g e n e r a l l y have d i f f i c u l t y r e t a i n i n g v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n short-term o r working memory. Blachman (1983) used k i n d e r g a r t e n and  grade 1 students  to i n v e s t i g a t e the a b i l i t y  Scales of Children's A b i l i t i e s  o f t h e McCarthy  (McCarthy, 1972) t o p r e d i c t r e a d i n g  achievement. The McCarthy S c a l e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e students at the beginning  o f t h e i r k i n d e r g a r t e n year and r e a d i n g  measures were a d m i n i s t e r e d  a t t h e end o f t h e year.  r e a d i n e s s measures c o n s i s t e d o f t h e r e a d i n g  readiness  The r e a d i n g  s e c t i o n o f t h e Wide  Range Achievement T e s t (Jastak & J a s t a k , 1978) and an i n f o r m a l t e s t in  which  alphabet  students  were  i n upper  asked  and lower  t o name a l l t h e l e t t e r s case  form  and i d e n t i f y  o f the  the sound  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each l e t t e r . A Memory  significant component  suggested  subtests  that  ability  rather  than  that  appear  because  Scales  and poor  memory  may  was  readiness.  component  verbal  accounted  amount o f v a r i a n c e i n r e a d i n g s c o r e s .  between the  includes  to differences i n verbal  readers,  have  found  and r e a d i n g  the Memory  t o be s e n s i t i v e  o f good  total  relationship  o f t h e McCarthy  Blachman  coding  positive  coding  for a  ability  significant  19 Liberman e t a l . (1977) r e p o r t e d d i s a b l e d readers  were l e s s a b l e t o remember s t r i n g s of u n r e l a t e d  numbers and  letters  Shankweiler  (1985) expressed  spoken i n f o r m a t i o n form w h i l e  presented  i s held  v i a a tachistoscope.  i n short-term  does  not  Speech P e r c e p t i o n  pose  Poor readers  such  phonological  t h e r e f o r e , appear phonological  a  problem  (Liberman,  Mann,  Nelson & Warrington, 1980).  Deficits  Syrdal-Laskey,  Millay,  d i f f e r e n c e s between d i s a b l e d and they  and  memory. Nonverbal i n f o r m a t i o n , such as memory  Shankweiler, & Werfelman, 1980;  Godfrey,  memory i n  i n the a b i l i t y t o form and m a i n t a i n  codes i n short-term faces  Liberman  the o p i n i o n t h a t incoming w r i t t e n or  i t i s b e i n g processed.  t o have a d e f i c i t  for  s e v e r a l s t u d i e s t h a t showed  categorized  contrasting  and  Knox  nondisabled  speech  (1981)  readers  sounds.  reported  i n the  way  Reading-disabled  c h i l d r e n were found t o have a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n problems when stimuli  were  Shankweiler,  presented &  Mann,  against  1983).  background  Tallal  (1980)  noise  found  nonlanguage impaired  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n who  distinguish  r a p i d l y presented  (1982) readers  between  suggested a  perceptual  that  group deficit  among the  exist that  that  general  suffer  causes  tones.  from  d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between phonemes i n speech.  Tallal  some  group  of  were unable to  population  difficulties  a  (Brady,  and  Stark  of  disabled  subtle  auditory  i n recognizing  and  20 Name R e t r i e v a l  The  Deficits  difficulty  reading-disabled  children  have  i n naming  f a m i l i a r p i c t u r e items was r e p o r t e d by Jansky and DeHirsch (1972). Denkla  and Rudel  (1976) a l s o  p r o f i c i e n t a t naming l i s t s normal  r e a d e r s . Blachman  naming t e s t  showed d i s a b l e d  (1983) found t h a t t h e Rapid  (TRAN) o f Denkla  and Rudel  Task o f Liberman,  (1974)  a  major  less  o f l e t t e r s , numbers, and p i c t u r e s than  segmentation was  r e a d e r s were  (1976) combined w i t h t h e  Shankweiler,  component  in  Automatized  Fischer,  predicting  and C a r t e r  later  reading  achievement. To d i s t i n g u i s h between name r e t r i e v a l speed and s e r i a l naming, Jackson and M c C l e l l a n d (1979) used a l e t t e r matching t a s k w i t h a d u l t s i n which items were matched p h y s i c a l l y  (AA) o r matched  by name (Aa). They found s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e naming t a s k and r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . A study w i t h r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d yielded similar results  (Ellis,  children  1981). I t has been suggested t h a t  name r e t r i e v a l d e f i c i t s can be l i n k e d t o d i f f i c u l t y a c c e s s i n g t h e phonological Fowler,  representation  1988; Wagner  o f words  & Torgesen,  i n the lexicon  1987).  This  process  termed p h o n o l o g i c a l r e c o d i n g w i t h l e x i c a l a c c e s s .  (Brady  &  has been  21 Comprehension  Use of Context  The  distinction  between good  and  disabled  readers  use  1  of  c o n t e x t u a l cues does not concern whether or not they use them, but how  they use them. A c c o r d i n g t o the t h e o r i e s of Goodman (1968) and  Smith  (1971), good r e a d e r s make e f f i c i e n t use of c o n t e x t u a l cues  i n decoding u n f a m i l i a r words but d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s are  inefficient  u s e r s of c o n t e x t . However, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) and  Perfetti  and  a  Lesgold  (1979)  theorized  that  information-processing  capacity.  expended  then  on  decoding  comprehending. P e r f e t t i ,  an  If  there  individual  most is  of  little  Goldman, and Hogaboam  has  the  fixed  capacity  left  is  over  for  (1979) found  that  good and poor f i f t h grade r e a d e r s r e c o g n i z e d words i n a c o n t e x t u a l setting  f a s t e r than words i n i s o l a t i o n .  the poor  r e a d e r s were more a f f e c t e d  The  r e c o g n i t i o n times of  by the c o n t e x t u a l s i t u a t i o n  than those of the good readers s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the poor  readers  made more use of c o n t e x t u a l cues than the f l u e n t r e a d e r s . In the same study, P e r f e t t i e t a l . (1979) found t h a t good r e a d e r s whose recognition cloze-like reached  a  time was task, level  an of  least  affected  indication  by  that  automaticity that  context d i d b e t t e r  their  decoding  enabled  them  skills to  on  a  had  complete  sentences w i t h ease. Another c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the use of c o n t e x t concerns the l e v e l  22 o f d i f f i c u l t y o f what i s being read. A d i s a b l e d reader cannot use c o n t e x t u a l cues when unable t o decode t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e words. In a l o n g i t u d i n a l study, S t a n o v i c h , Cunningham, and Freeman (1984) showed t h a t poor readers demonstrated as much use o f c o n t e x t u a l cues as good r e a d e r s when they c o u l d read a passage w i t h t h e same speed and accuracy.  Short-Term Memory  Poor r e a d e r s have been shown t o perform  p o o r l y on a v a r i e t y  of s h o r t - t e r m memory t a s k s (Blachman, 1983; Liberman e t a l . 1977; Liberman & Shankweiler, is  t h a t poor readers  results  1985). One e x p l a n a t i o n , p r e s e n t e d  are d e f i c i e n t  earlier,  i n p h o n o l o g i c a l coding which  i n slow word-by-word r e a d i n g which i n t u r n a f f e c t s  their  a b i l i t y t o comprehend. P e r f e t t i and L e s g o l d (1977, 1979) t h e o r i z e d t h a t t h i s slower decoding i n short-term memory reduces t h e a b i l i t y of t h e d i s a b l e d reader t o a l s o h o l d l a r g e r u n i t s , such as c l a u s e s and sentences, the  inability  memorization elaboration  i n short-term memory. Another e x p l a n a t i o n of  poor  strategies,  readers such  to  use  deliberate,  concerns planful  as v e r b a l r e h e a r s a l , imagery, and  (see S t a n o v i c h , 1982b).  These e x p l a n a t i o n s are not mutually e x c l u s i v e (Torgesen, 197879) .  There  i s evidence  to  show  that  poor  readers  may  have  d i f f i c u l t y comprehending because o f problems w i t h s h o r t - t e r m memory as w e l l as t h e use o f i n e f f i c i e n t memorization  s t r a t e g i e s (see  23 S t a n o v i c h , 1982b). S t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g has enabled d i s a b l e d readers t o improve t h e i r r e a d i n g comprehension ( P a l i n s c a r , 1976; P a l i n s c a r & Brown,  1984; Stevens,  1988; Wong,  1979; Wong  & Jones, 1982)  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s t r a t e g i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o them but they  fail  t o use them.  Metacognition  A  large  body  of  research  has  focused  on  the r o l e  m e t a c o g n i t i o n and t h e use o f s e l f - d i r e c t i o n i n e f f i c i e n t (see Borkowski, disagreement argues  that  of  learning  Johnson, & Reid, 1987; Wong, 1987). There i s some  as t o what c o n s t i t u t e s m e t a c o g n i t i o n . Lawson  (1984)  m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge and t h e e x e c u t i v e processes  t h a t d i r e c t t h a t knowledge are separate and d i s t i n c t . F l a v e l (1978) r e f e r s t o m e t a c o g n i t i o n as self-awareness and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n of one's c o g n i t i v e processes t h a t Reeve  and Brown  (1985)  a r e under c o n s c i o u s c o n t r o l . For  metacognition  i s "...a c o l l e c t i o n  of  problems s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s used by i n d i v i d u a l s t o understand what is  required,  t o understand  their  own  capabilities,  to plan  s t r a t e g i e s t h a t w i l l a l l o w them t o reach t h e g o a l , and t o monitor and c o o r d i n a t e these a c t i v i t i e s "  (pp. 344-345).  Many s t u d i e s have shown t h a t r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n do not use  strategies  efficiently  comprehension, and study s k i l l s  i n both  word  (Anderson,  decoding,  reading  1980; Brown, 1980; Wong  & Wong, 1987). Brown (1980) d i s t i n g u i s h e d between d e l i b e r a t e  24 c o n s c i o u s s t r a t e g i c i n t e r v e n t i o n and o t h e r i n t e l l i g e n t p r o c e s s i n g that  goes  analogy  on  of  at  a  lower,  "automatic  more automatic  pilot"  s k i l l e d and f l u e n t readers who strategic  state  information activities  in  by the  termed  t o d e s c r i b e the  She  used  the  p r o c e s s i n g of  the  i s " t r i g g e r e d " i n t o a more conscious  encountering text.  level.  Then  "debugging"  unexpected  deliberate, take  over  and  unfamiliar  planful,  until  the  strategic problem  is  s o l v e d . A c c o r d i n g t o Brown (1980), debugging a c t i v i t i e s are s k i l l s of m e t a c o g n i t i o n . Less  skilled  effectively. text  do  not  They have d i f f i c u l t y  under both  adopt  readers  r e a d i n g and  helping strategies  such  use  debugging  extracting  listening as  strategies  the main i d e a  c o n d i t i o n s . They  u n d e r l i n i n g ; they  from  fail  do  not  as  to  give  f o r g o t t e n m a t e r i a l more study time; and they don't know when they are ready t o be t e s t e d (Brown, 1980).  L i m i t a t i o n s of the I n f o r m a t i o n - P r o c e s s i n g Approach  Sternberg  (1978)  identified  i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approach. of  the  method  to  provide  a  two The  means  major  limitations  f i r s t concerns the for  of  the  inability  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y studying  c o r r e l a t e s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a s k performance. In other words,  there  i s no  procedure  f o r d i s c o v e r i n g the  relationship  between components of one t a s k and components of another. Without r e s o r t i n g t o d i f f e r e n t i a l methods. S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e i s no  procedure  25  for  discovering the r e l a t i o n s h i p  tasks  and  components  of  between  intelligence  components without  of reading  resorting  to  d i f f e r e n t i a l methods. The  second  limitation  concerns  the overvaluation  of task-  s p e c i f i c components t h a t have no g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y t o o t h e r t a s k s . A  component  manipulation  of a s p e c i f i c  task  may be i d e n t i f i e d  through  task  b u t i t s importance t o a domain o f t a s k s can only be  i d e n t i f i e d through d i f f e r e n t i a l methods.  Summary o f I n f o r m a t i o n - P r o c e s s i n g  Theory and Research  In summary, s e v e r a l t h e o r i e s o f r e a d i n g have been d e v i s e d t h a t view  the  reading  process  as  data-driven,  concept  driven,  i n t e r a c t i v e , o r made up o f independent stages. Research i n d i c a t e s that  d i s a b l e d readers  linked  to deficits  coding. memory,  have poor decoding  i n phonological  s k i l l s which have been  awareness  and p h o n o l o g i c a l  D i s a b l e d readers may a l s o e x h i b i t d e f i c i t s speech  perception  and  name  retrieval.  i n short-term Comprehension  d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e l i n k e d t o l a c k o f a u t o m a t i c i t y i n decoding poor  short-term  memory.  Poor  comprehension  i n e f f i c i e n t use o f m e t a c o g n i t i v e  Subtyping  i s also  and t o  linked  to  skills.  Research  In 1971, Applebee reviewed s i x r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y models and  26 p r e s e n t e d evidence t o show why was  the s i m p l e s t models d i d not f i t what  known about the d i s o r d e r . He suggested  t h a t r e s e a r c h should  be  based on the newer, more complex models t h a t corresponded  closely  t o the h e t e r o g e n e i t y  "Such a  of the d i s o r d e r . Applebee c a u t i o n e d  s h i f t w i l l r e q u i r e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d methods of a n a l y s i s than have been employed i n the p a s t , and w i l l b r i n g w i t h them a whole new of problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and d e s i g n "  set  (p.119).  The f i r s t attempts t o c l a s s i f y r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d s u b j e c t s were based  upon  characteristic  patterns  of  deficit  in neurological  and/or p s y c h o e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s . The groupings depended upon the instruments included:  used  and  the  criteria  Verbal/Performance  IQ  set  by  discrepancy  Wechsler A d u l t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e (Wechsler, Intelligence Warrington,  Scale  for Children  1963), c l i n i c a l  the as  measured  1955)  (Wechsler,  observation  researcher.  They  by  the  and the Wechsler  1949)  (Kinsbourne  of r e a d i n g  and  &  learning  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967), o b s e r v a t i o n of r e a d i n g errors  (Ingram, Mason,  and/or  spelling  & Blackburn,  patterns  (Boder,  1970),  1973;  a n a l y s i s of  Boder  &  Jarrico,  reading 1982;  Sweeney & Rourke, 1978), n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l p r o f i l e analysis  ( M a t t i s , French  & Rapin, 1975), and c l i n i c a l  of n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e f i c i t s  (Denkla,  observation  1977).  The C o n t r i b u t i o n of Boder  Boder's (1971, 1973)  are c o n s i d e r e d  important c o n t r i b u t i o n s  27 t o t h e s u b t y p i n g l i t e r a t u r e (Gordon, 1984; Hynd & Cohen, 1983; Satz & M o r r i s , 1981). Boder examined t h e e r r o r p a t t e r n s i n t h e r e a d i n g and from  s p e l l i n g performance o f 107 d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s , r a n g i n g i n age e i g h t t o s i x t e e n y e a r s , and i d e n t i f i e d  disabled  readers  in  Group  I,  labelled  t h r e e subtypes. The "dysphonetic",  were  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by primary d e f i c i t s i n t h e a u d i t o r y channel and were unable t o a n a l y z e words p h o n e t i c a l l y . The d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s i n Group I I , l a b e l l e d " d y s e i d e t i c " , were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a primary i n t h e v i s u a l channel  and were unable  deficit  t o p e r c e i v e words as whole  words o r " v i s u a l g e s t a l t s " . The d i s a b l e d readers i n Group I I I were characterized dysphonetic  by primary  deficits  i n both  and d y s e i d e t i c . Members o f t h i s  channels  being  both  group were t h e most  severely d i s a b l e d of the three. In a d d i t i o n  t o these  Boder and J a r r i c o  specific  reading d i s a b i l i t y  (1982) i d e n t i f i e d two o t h e r groups.  subtypes,  The members  of one were c o n s i d e r e d t o have n o n s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n and the  members  disability.  of  the  other  They suggested  to  have  an  undetermined  t h a t t h e undetermined group c o n s i s t e d  of remediated  Group I and Group I I I s u b j e c t s .  All  to c l a s s i f y  these attempts  reading  reading-disabled individuals  i n t o subtypes have r e v e a l e d a g r e a t d e a l o f c l i n i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Satz and M o r r i s  (1981) c a u t i o n e d however, t h a t s e l e c t i o n based on  v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n o f complex data does not n e c e s s a r i l y " r e f l e c t the hidden  s t r u c t u r e o f the d a t a " and t h e " v a l i d i t y ,  r e l i a b i l i t y and  u t i l i t y o f these subtypes have seldom been t e s t e d "  (p.116).  28 S t a t i s t i c a l Methods  In an attempt t o reduce t h e s u b j e c t i v i t y o f p r e v i o u s subtyping methods, c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s was i n t r o d u c e d . In t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y new approach t o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s , although t h e methods have been used f o r s e v e r a l years i n the b i o l o g i c a l  sciences  (Everitt,  1980). C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s has  been d e s c r i b e d as "...a q u a s i - s t a t i s t i c a l  technique  used on m u l t i v a r i a t e data i n order t o c r e a t e such (Morris, B l a s h f i e l d , There  classifications"  & Satz, 1981, p.79)  a r e seven  hierarchical  which can be  major  agglomerative  categories of c l u s t e r methods;  2)  analysis:  hierarchical  1)  divisive  methods; 3) i t e r a t i v e p a r t i t i o n i n g t e c h n i q u e s ; 4) d e n s i t y s e a r c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s ; 5) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s v a r i a n t s (one o f which i s Q - f a c t o r analysis);  6)  clumping  techniques;  and  7)  graphic  techniques  ( M o r r i s , B l a s h f i e d , & Satz, 1981). In r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h , two  types o f c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s have been favoured over t h e o t h e r s ,  namely,  Q-type  factor  a n a l y s i s and h i e r a r c h i c a l  agglomerative  methods.  O-Type F a c t o r A n a l y s i s  The analyzes  factor  analysis variant,  correlations  among  known  subjects  as Q - f a c t o r  and produces  analysis,  factors  d e s c r i b e groups o f s u b j e c t s r a t h e r than groups o f t e s t s  that  (Kavale &  29 Forness,  1987) . In the f i e l d of h e a l t h s c i e n c e s , Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  has been a p p l i e d t o the study of d i s e a s e s through of  patients  (Sneath  according  & Sokal,  to  1973),  their  i n an  symptoms  and  classification  signs  of  attempt t o d i s c o v e r the  disease etiology,  therapy and p r o g n o s i s f o r i n d i v i d u a l p a t i e n t s . For s i m i l a r reasons, s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s a p p l i e d the method t o the study of r e a d i n g and l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s (Doehring Bryans,  1979;  Doehring  & Hoshko, 1977;  e t a l , 1981;  Doehring,  Hoshko, &  F i s k & Rourke, 1979;  Petruskas  & Rourke, 1979). R e s u l t s are summarized i n T a b l e Initially,  Doehring  and  Hoshko  r e a d i n g - r e l a t e d measures w i t h ranged  from  e i g h t years  up  to  two 16  1.  (1977) used  a  series  of  31  groups of c h i l d r e n whose ages years  2 months,  and  who  were  e n r o l e d i n a summer program f o r c h i l d r e n w i t h l e a r n i n g problems. Group  R  c o n s i s t e d of  34  reading-disabled children  c o n s i s t e d of 31 c h i l d r e n who  and  Group  M  e x h i b i t e d mixed problems. Data i n the  form of response l a t e n c y or e r r o r s c o r e s were converted t o standard s c o r e s based upon norms e s t a b l i s h e d i n a p r e v i o u s study  (Doehring,  1976). The standard s c o r e s were Q - f a c t o r analyzed t o form subtypes. Three  subtypes  that  emerged  from  the  reading-disabled  sample  c o n t i n u e d t o emerge when they were combined and analyzed w i t h the mixed group. Subtype 1, which c o n s i s t e d of 3 5 p e r c e n t of Group R, was  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d e f i c i t s  Subtype deficits  2,  which c o n s i s t e d of  in  i n o r a l word and 32  percent  auditory-visual letter  syllable  of Group R,  matching.  Subtype  reading. exhibited 3,  which  c o n s i s t e d of 24 p e r c e n t of Group R, had d e f i c i t s i n v i s u a l matching  30  Table 1. Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d by Q-factor a n a l y s i s  Number &/or name of subtype & characteristics  Authors/ Sample Reading & r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s Doehring & H o s h k o ( 1 9 7 7) Readingdisabled students  T y p e 1 : d i f f i c u l t y with oral word & s y l l a b l e reading  T y p e 2 : d i f f i c u l t y with auditory/visual matching  T y p e 3 : d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l matching & auditory/visual matching words & syllables  Doehring & H o s h k o ( 1 9 7 7) Readingdisabled students  T y p e 1 : d i f f i c u l t y with oral word & s y l l a b l e reading  T y p e 2 : d i f f i c u l t y with auditory/visual matching  T y p e 3 : d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l matching & auditory/visual matching words & syllables  Doehring & H o s h k o ( 1 9 7 7) Readingdisabled students  T y p e 1 : d i f f i c u l t y with oral word & s y l l a b l e reading  T y p e 2 : d i f f i c u l t y with auditory/visual matching  T y p e 3 : d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l matching & auditory/visual matching words & syllables  Language & neuropsychological v a r i a b l e s Petruskas & Rourke ( 1 9 7 9) Readingdisabled students  Type 1: language disturbance d i f f i c u l t y with auditory & verbal memory & auditory/perceptual s k i l l s  T y p e 2 : d i f f i c u l t y with sequencing & f i n g e r localization  T y p e 3 : d i f f i c u l t y with conceptual flexibility, motoric & retentive s k i l l s  Fiske & R o u r k e ( 1 9 7 9) Learningdisabled students  T y p e A : d i f f i c u l t y with f i n g e r localization  T y p e B : d i f f i c u l t y with phonemic hearing & verbal coding  T y p e C : d i f f i c u l t y with fingertip writing  31 and a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l matching o f words and s y l l a b l e s . Nine percent of t h e d i s a b l e d reader group were u n c l a s s i f i e d . Doehring  e t a l . (1981)  used  t h e same  31 r e a d i n g - r e l a t e d  measures and e i g h t a d d i t i o n a l t e s t s c o n s i s t i n g o f a c o l o u r and a p i c t u r e naming t e s t , two t e s t s o f geometric f i g u r e scanning, a t e s t of sentence comprehension and t h r e e s p e l l i n g - t y p e t e s t s . The sample consisted to  o f 85 c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d  17 y e a r s  and 3 a d u l t s  aged  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n aged 8 20 t o 27 y e a r s .  Three  reading  d i s a b i l i t y subtypes a l s o emerged when t h e standard s c o r e s obtained from 39 t e s t s were Q - f a c t o r analyzed. The subtypes obtained  i n the previous  studies  Doehring,  Hoshko, & Bryans,  1979). Subtypes 1 (38%), 2 (25%), and  3  (19%) were  Reading  renamed  Deficit),  by Doehring  Type  A  (Doehring  resembled those  et a l .  (Association  &  Hoshko,  (1981),  Type  Deficit),  and  1977;  0  (Oral  Type  S  (Sequence D e f i c i t ) , r e s p e c t i v e l y . E i g h t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e r e a d i n g disabled from  s u b j e c t s were u n c l a s s i f i e d . Although  study  t o study,  i t can be seen  that  percentages  Subtype  varied  1 o r Type 0  c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n t a i n e d the most s u b j e c t s and Subtype 3 o r Type S, the  least.  criticised  The l a b e l l i n g by  Ellis  o f Type  (1985)  S as a sequence  on t h e grounds  that  deficit  was  t h e term  was  something o f a misnomer because i t d i d not adequately d e s c r i b e the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered  by t h i s group.  Doehring e t a l . (1981) a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d a b a t t e r y o f language t e s t s t o t h e i r r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d sample but t h e data o b t a i n e d from these t e s t s were analyzed a f t e r the subtypes  had been  identified.  32 The  language  battery  contained  tests  designed  t o measure t h e  a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e phonemes w i t h i n s y l l a b l e s and words, t e s t s of  serial  naming, a t e s t o f short-term  comprehension  and t e s t s  memory, a t e s t  of syntactic-semantic  of verbal  skills.  However,  p l o t t i n g the average grade e q u i v a l e n t s c o r e s o f the language t e s t s for  each o f t h e t h r e e  different analysis  patterns  reading  o f language  o f t h e language data  Language  deficit  repeating  word  difficulty  disability  Type  strings  deficit.  subtypes d i d not show In a d d i t i o n ,  y i e l d e d only  two s t a b l e  1 was c h a r a c t e r i z e d whereas  Type  Q-factor  by  factors.  difficulty in  2 was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a  i n naming. Very weak r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  d e f i c i t Type 1 and r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y Type 2 and r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y  language  Type 0 and language  deficit  subtype A and S e x i s t e d . F o r t y - n i n e  p e r c e n t o f the d i s a b l e d readers were u n c l a s s i f i e d by the language variables. The  Q-factor  Rourke(1979)  analytic  technique  was used  by Petruskas and  t o analyze the n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e s o f samples  of d i s a b l e d and normal readers who obtained a F u l l S c a l e IQ score between 80 and 120 on the WISC and were aged from 84 t o 107 months. One  hundred and t h i r t y  t h r e e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n (mean age  92.78 months; mean IQ 96.92) who scored a t the 25th p e r c e n t i l e o r less  on t h e WRAT r e a d i n g  subtest  r e f e r r e d p o p u l a t i o n . Twenty-seven  were  s e l e c t e d from  normal readers  a  clinic-  (mean age 96.07  months; mean IQ 107.26) scored a t the 45th p e r c e n t i l e o r above on the WRAT Reading s u b t e s t . A b a t t e r y o f n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l  measures  33 designed  to  sequencing, conceptual  assess visual  skills  i n the  spatial,  processing  were  area  tactile, used.  of auditory-verbal,  motoric,  The WISC  and  formed  abstract-  part  of the  b a t t e r y w i t h each s u b t e s t c o u n t i n g as a s i n g l e measure. Of t h e 44 o r i g i n a l measures, 20 c o n s i d e r e d t o be the most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e were used i n t h e Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Three subtypes emerged. Type 1 (25 %) had l a r g e WISC Verbal-Performance d i s c r e p a n c i e s and showed evidence o f language d i s t u r b a n c e i n c l u d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a u d i t o r y / v e r b a l memory and a u d i t o r y / p e r c e p t u a l s k i l l s . F o r Type 2  (16%),  finger  difficulties. in  localization  and  sequencing  were  t h e major  The predominant d e f i c i e n c y o f Type 3 (8%) o c c u r r e d  conceptual  flexibility,  particularly  linguistic  coding.  D e f i c i e n c i e s i n motoric and v e r b a l e x p r e s s i v e and r e t e n t i v e s k i l l s were  also  apparent.  F i f t y - o n e percent  of the reading-disabled  sample were u n c l a s s i f i e d . A  similar  study  used  three  groups  of learning-disabled  students s e l e c t e d from the same c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n ( F i s k & Rourke, 1979) . A l l students had F u l l S c a l e WISC IQs i n t h e range 86 t o 114. The  groups were aged  9-10 years  11.86), and 13-14 years subjects;  and  respectively.  had  (mean 9.95),  11-12 years  (mean 13.74); c o n t a i n e d  mean  IQs  of  9 6.18,  The s u b j e c t s were i d e n t i f i e d  (mean  100, 100, and 64  9 6.37,  and  94.98,  as l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d  u s i n g a c r i t e r i o n s e t a t t h e 30th p e r c e n t i l e o r l e s s on a l l t h r e e WRAT  subtests  (Arithmetic,  Reading,  and S p e l l i n g ) .  Twenty-one  n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s s i m i l a r t o those o f Petruskas and  34 Rourke (1979) were Q - f a c t o r  analyzed.  F i s k and Rourke i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes. The  first,  Subtype A  (20%) was c h a r a c t e r i s e d  by d i f f i c u l t y  with  f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n and was s i m i l a r t o t h e Type 2 o f Petruskas and Rourke. The l i m i t i n g f e a t u r e s o f Subtype B (19%) were d e f i c i e n c i e s in  phonemic h e a r i n g ,  verbal  coding,  and s h o r t - t e r m  audio-visual  memory. Members o f t h i s subtype a l s o had a l a r g e Verbal-Performance IQ d i s c r e p a n c y s i m i l a r t o Type 1 o f Petruskas and Rourke. A t h i r d , Subtype C (15%) was only apparent a t t h e two o l d e r l e v e l . distinguished  by  outstandingly  poor  performance  I t was  in fingertip  w r i t i n g and was i n t e r p r e t e d by the authors as a p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n of Subtype A. F o r t y - s i x p e r c e n t o f s u b j e c t s were u n c l a s s i f i e d . Q-factor  analysis  has  some  limitations.  Many  of  the  l i m i t a t i o n s o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s l i s t e d by S t e r n b e r g (1977) apply t o Q-factor to  a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t concerns t h e i n a b i l i t y o f t h e method  discover  patterns  the cognitive of  interindividual  disabled nature  processes that readers.  of factor  underlie  The  second  analysis  t h e behaviour concerns  the  and i t s i n a b i l i t y t o  i n d i c a t e p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s used a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . The third  l i m i t a t i o n concerns  the f a c t t h a t  t h e o r e t i c a l models are  proposed t o f i t t h e data a f t e r t h e f a c t , making i t i m p o s s i b l e test  a  theory  o r compare  one  theory  with  another,  A  to  fourth  l i m i t a t i o n concerns t h e a r b i t r a r y r o t a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n t h a t i s made a f t e r factors are extracted,  implying  that there  i s not one  35  s o l u t i o n but as many s o l u t i o n s as t h e r e are r o t a t i o n a l possibilities. Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was  also c r i t i c i z e d  on the grounds t h a t i t  f a i l e d t o take i n t o account the e l e v a t i o n o f the s u b j e c t s ' p r o f i l e s (Fleiss, method  Lawlor,  of  Platman,  clustering  & Fieve,  based  on  1971).  both  However, the McQuitty  squared  euclidian  distance  c o e f f i c i e n t s and shape d i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t s was used by Doehring, Hoshko, and Bryans to  Q-analysis.  Everitt's  (1979) and Doehring e t a l . (1981) i n a d d i t i o n  Very  similar  (1980) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t  under d i f f e r e n t c l u s t e r i n g Another l i m i t a t i o n  more  than  membership  one  a good  produced  solution  satisfying  should  appear  concerns the number o f s t u d e n t s who f a c t o r l o a d i n g s t h a t met  factor.  increases  were  ,methods.  e i t h e r u n c l a s s i f i e d or had for  subtypes  the  Raising  number  of  the  criteria  unclassified  l o w e r i n g the c r i t e r i a reduces the homogeneity  the for  were  criteria subtype  subjects  but  o f each subtype.  H i e r a r c h i c a l Agglomerative Techniques  The  initial  popularity  learning d i s a b i l i t y of,  of Q - f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  r e s e a r c h may  i n r e a d i n g and  be a t t r i b u t e d t o widespread  use  and f a m i l i a r i t y with, the r e l a t e d R - f a c t o r a n a l y t i c t e c h n i q u e .  However, r e s e a r c h e r s now seem t o p r e f e r h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative techniques since  the  as  few  work  Q-factor analytic  studies  of  al.  Doehring  et  have been  (1981) .  reported  Hierarchical  36 agglomerative t e c h n i q u e s c l u s t e r i n d i v i d u a l s a c c o r d i n g t o mathematical average  a l g o r i t h m s . S o l u t i o n s o b t a i n e d u s i n g Ward's method of  l i n k a g e have been shown t o be  particularly  powerful  in  comparison t o those o b t a i n e d by o t h e r c l u s t e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s (Morey, B l a s h f i e l d , & Skinner, 1983). Three groups o f r e s e a r c h e r s i n v o l v e d in  longitudinal  studies  have  used  hierarchical  agglomerative  techniques. Lyon and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Lyon & Watson, 1981; Watson, Porch, carried  out  & Rhodes, 1981;  a  series  of  Lyon, Stewart,  subtype  Lyon,  Rietta,  & Freedman,  identification  studies  1982) with  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n i n North C a r o l i n a , Alabama, and Georgia. One  of the f i r s t  investigations  (Lyon & Watson, 1981)  involved a  b a t t e r y of t e s t s used by M a t t i s e t a l . (1975) designed t o measure auditory  r e c e p t i v e and  expressive  language,  visual  memory, and v i s u a l - m o t o r i n t e g r a t i o n . The b a t t e r y was t o 100  school-identified reading-disabled children  perception, administered  (SLD/R) and  50  normal r e a d e r s (NR) matched f o r age and IQ. Ages ranged from 11 t o 12.5  y e a r s w i t h means of 12.3  Full  S c a l e WISC-R s c o r e s were w i t h i n the normal range w i t h means  of  105.7  exhibited  (SLD/R) and significant  106.1  years  (NR).  deficits  (SLD/R) and  12.4  years  (NR).  A l l members of the SLD/R group i n reading,  as  measured  by  the  Peabody I n d i v i d u a l Achievement T e s t (PIAT), whereas a l l members of group NR were r e a d i n g a t , or above, grade l e v e l . Scores  f o r each v a r i a b l e i n the t e s t b a t t e r y were converted  t o s t a n d a r d s c o r e s based upon the mean s c o r e s of the normal reader  37 group. C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s u s i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l a g g l o m e r a t i v e techniques t h a t employed a minimum v a r i a n c e c r i t e r i o n produced s i x homogeneous subtypes. S i x students  (2%) c o u l d not be a s s i g n e d t o any o f the  subgroups. Subgroup  1 (10%) was  t e s t e d . Members o f t h i s  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d e f i c i t s  i n a l l areas  subtype a l s o had poor s i g h t  d e f i c i e n t word a t t a c k s k i l l s ,  vocabulary,  and were the p o o r e s t r e a d e r s i n the  sample. They were l i k e n e d t o Boder's (1971) mixed dysphonetic and d y s e i d e t i c s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtype. Members of Subgroup 2  (12%)  exhibited  mixed  deficits  in  language  comprehension,  a u d i t o r y memory, and v i s u a l - m o t o r i n t e g r a t i o n . They were w i t h the mixed type of d i s a b l e d  compared  reader d e s c r i b e d by Johnson and  Myklebust (1967) and w i t h a m i l d form o f Boder's mixed dysphonetic and d y s e i d e t i c subtype. The  language  comprehension  and  sound  blending  problems  of  Subgroup 3 (12%) were thought t o r e p r e s e n t a language d i s o r d e r with both  receptive  and  expressive  components.  This  subgroup  compared t o the language d i s o r d e r e d group o f M a t t i s e t a l . the  dysphonetic  auditory Subgroup a to  subgroup  dyslexic 4  deficit Boder's  o f Boder  described  (32%) was  by  (1971)  Johnson  and  indirectly  and  Myklebust  (1971)  (1975), t o the (1967).  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by normal language s k i l l s  i n v i s u o p e r c e p t i v e f u n c t i o n . The subgroup was dyseidetic  subtype. I t a l s o  had  the  was  and  compared largest  membership, which the authors regarded as unexpected because M a t t i s et  al.  (1975)  and  other  researchers  had  observed  that  38 visuoperceptive  disorders  occurred  more  frequently  i n younger  children. Subgroup 5 (12%) was compared t o t h e a p h a s i c group o f M a t t i s et  a l . (1975).  ability,  They  auditory  were  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d e f i c i t s  memory,  and sound  blending.  i n naming  Members  of t h i s  subgroup a l s o had t h e second lowest r e a d i n g s c o r e s i n t h e sample. Members o f Subgroup 6 (16%) had a normal d i a g n o s t i c p r o f i l e . T h i s pattern  was unexpected  although  these  children  had t h e h i g h e s t  r e a d i n g s c o r e s i n t h e sample. The authors suggested reading  o f these  children  t h a t t h e poor  (compared t o normal readers)  might be  associated with s o c i a l , m o t i v a t i o n a l , or pedagogical f a c t o r s rather than some i n h e r e n t d e f i c i t . In an attempt t o f u r t h e r v a l i d a t e these subgroups, Lyon e t a l . (1981) used e x t e r n a l measures o f achievement, s c h o o l h i s t o r y , SES, and  parent  reports  o f developmental  milestones.  The  subgroups  d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the achievement t e s t w i t h Subgroups 1 and 5  being  more  impaired  on  reading  recognition  and  reading  comprehension. Subtype 6, which had e x h i b i t e d a normal d i a g n o s t i c p r o f i l e , s c o r e s above t h e o t h e r s on a l l measures. The socioeconomic and developmental The  measures d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h among t h e subgroups.  study was f o l l o w e d by a s i m i l a r one (Lyon e t a l . , 1982)  using children administered  i n primary  t o 75  grades.  The same b a t t e r y o f t e s t s was  school-identified  (SLD/R) and 42 normal readers  reading-disabled  children  (NR) matched f o r age and IQ. Ages  ranged from 6-5 t o 9-9 years w i t h means o f 8-2 y e a r s  (SLD/R) and  39 8-1 with  years  (NR).  F u l l S c a l e WISC-R s c o r e s were i n the normal range  means of  exhibited  102.9  (SLD/R) and  a significant  deficit  105.3  (NR).  i n the  The  SLD/R  PIAT Reading  students  Recognition  s u b t e s t whereas the NR students read a t , or above, grade l e v e l . Woodcock Reading Mastery t e s t was  a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d t o both groups  of s t u d e n t s . H i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative test  battery  previous  standardized  The  scores  techniques a p p l i e d t o the  was  carried  out  as  in  the  study.  This analysis yielded f i v e c l u s t e r s ;  e l e v e n students  (15%)  c o u l d not be a s s i g n e d t o any of them. Subtypes s i m i l a r t o f i v e of the s i x i d e n t i f i e d by Lyon and Watson  (1981) were noted.  Subtype  1 (24%) was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h i n l i n g u i s t i c and  deficits  i n v i s u a l perception, visual-motor  visual-spatial skills  skills  integration,  and  (Lyon and Watson's Subgroup 4 ) . T h i s subtype  had the lowest Woodcock Word R e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e . Members of Subtype 2 (13%) e x h i b i t e d r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h i n v i s u a l p e r c e p t u a l s k i l l s deficits  i n r e c e p t i v e and  Subgroup  3) . They  Passage  Comprehension  exhibited  scored  of  poorly  subtests.  a normal p r o f i l e  Subgroup 6 and had deficits  also  e x p r e s s i v e language on  Members  (Lyon and Watson's  the  Woodcock Word  of  Subtype  s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f Lyon and  3  4  (20%)  indicated  that  these  and (16%)  Watson's  the b e s t o v e r a l l Woodcock r e a d i n g s c o r e s .  Subtype  and  students  The had  d i f f i c u l t y remembering, a n a l y z i n g , and c o r r e c t l y sequencing v e r b a l and  visual  i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s subtype was  Watson's Subgroup 5. Although  compared w i t h  t h i s subtype had  Lyon  and  the b e s t Woodcock  40 L e t t e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s c o r e s they had the lowest Word A t t a c k , Word Comprehension  and Passage Comprehension  scores. Overall  they had  the second worst r e a d i n g s c o r e s . The mixed d e f i c i t s o f t h i s subtype were compared t o Lyon and Watson's Subgroup 1. T h i s group had the second worst r e a d i n g s c o r e s . A subtype s i m i l a r t o Lyon & Watson's (1981) Subtype 2 was not present  i n the younger group. Lyon e t a l . (1982)  suggested t h a t  Lyon and Watson's Subtype 2 may have c o n s i s t e d o f s t u d e n t s who were more d i s a b l e d  a t an e a r l i e r  over time u n t i l  age  in specific  areas, but improved  they e x h i b i t e d a mixture o f m i l d e r d e f i c i t s .  subtypes are summarized  The  i n Table 2.  The second group o f r e s e a r c h e r s were i n v o l v e d i n the C a r o l i n a p r o j e c t . Although the main purpose of t h i s p r o j e c t was t o subtype learning  disabled  students u s i n g  behavioural  variables  (Speece,  McKinney, & Appelbaum, 1985) and study the s t a b i l i t y o f b e h a v i o u r a l subtypes  over  a  three-year  period  s t u d e n t s were a l s o  subtyped u s i n g  Appelbaum,  The  discussed  1986).  (McKinney  &  Speece,  language v a r i a b l e s  behavioural  subtyping  1986),  (Feagans &  studies  will  be  first.  I n i t i a l l y the Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI) developed by S c h a e f e r (see McKinney, 1984; Speece, McKinney, & Appelbaum,  1985)  was  other  used t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  groups 1982;  (Feagans & McKinney, McKinney  learning-disabled 1981;  children  from  McKinney,  McClure, & Feagans,  & Forman, 1982). The CBI was  used by t e a c h e r s t o  r a t e s t u d e n t s on such behaviour as academic  competence,  41  T a b l e 2. S u b t y p e s i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative technigues  Authors/ sample Lyon & W a t s o n (1981) 11-12 y e a r o l d readingdisabled students  Lyon e t a l . (1982) 6-9 yearo l d readingdisabled student  v a r i a b l e s and  Number &/or name o f s u b t y p e & characteristics Subtype 1 : d i f f i c u l t y with a u d i t o r y receptive & e x p r e s s i v e language, v i s u a l perception, memory & v i s u a l motor s k i l l s  Subtype 2: d i f f i c u l t y with l a n g u a g e comprehension, a u d i t o r y memory, & visual-motor integration  Subtype 3: d i f f i c u l t y with l a n g u a g e comprehension & sound b l e n d i n g  Subtype 4: d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l perception  Subtype 5 : d i f f i c u l t y with naming, a u d i t o r y memory & sound blending  Subtype 6: normal profile  Subtype 1: d i f f i c u l t y with v i s u a l perception  Subtype 2: d i f f i c u l t y with receptive & e x p r e s s i v e language  Subtype 3: normal profile  Sub t y p e 4 : d i f f i c u l t y with naming, a u d i t o r y m e m o r y , sequencing v e r b a l & v i s u a l information  Subtype 5 : d i f f i c u l t y with receptive & e x p r e s s i v e language  42 distractibility,  i n t r o v e r s i o n / e x t r o v e r s i o n , and s o c i a l  behaviour.  McKinney (1984) d e s c r i b e d an i n i t i a l study i n which 59  first-  and second-grade, s c h o o l - i d e n t i f i e d l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n were subtyped  using  intellectual behaviour deficits  hierarchical  ability  (CBI).  cluster  a n a l y s i s with  (WISC-R), achievement  Of  the  four  subtypes  i n some areas of i n t e l l e c t u a l  (PIAT),  that  measures and  emerged  classroom a l l showed  f u n c t i o n i n g and  levels  achievement. Members of Subtypes I (33%), (II (10%), and I I I were  perceived  competence  by  classroom  (independence,  teachers  to  verbal a b i l i t y ,  be  and  low  of  in  of  (47%)  academic  curiosity)  whereas  students i n Subtype IV (10%) were p e r c e i v e d t o have the same l e v e l of  academic competence as average a c h i e v e r s . Members of Subtype IV  also  had  behavioural  c h i l d r e n . The  profiles  t h r e e subtypes  which  resembled  and  of  with behavioural d e f i c i e n c i e s  be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on t a s k - o r i e n t e d behaviour, extroversion,  those  h o s t i l i t y versus  introversion  considerateness with  normal could versus  Subtypes  II and I I e x h i b i t i n g the l e a s t d e s i r a b l e behaviour. The b e h a v i o u r a l p r o f i l e s were v a l i d a t e d u s i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s of LD r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r s and t h e i r responses  on the P u p i l R a t i n g s c a l e (PRS). None of the  teachers  Subtype IV as having behaviour  low  identified  achievement  of t h i s  group c o u l d not  be  problems.  e x p l a i n e d by  The  either  i n t e l l e c t u a l or b e h a v i o u r a l problems. Speece, McKinney, and Appelbaum (1985) used o n l y the Behavior first  Inventory  to  Classroom  subtype l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d students  i n the  stage of a l o n g i t u d i n a l study. T h e i r l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d (LD)  43 sample c o n s i s t e d of f i r s t - and  second-grade c h i l d r e n who  had  been  newly i d e n t i f i e d as l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d by a m u l t i - d i s c i p l i n a r y team. Learning-disabled  children  nonlearning-disabled were p a r t i c i p a n t s  were  children i n the  of  96.1)  sample was  months; mean IQ  children  107.9). The  c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s . The  (NLD)  with  average  achieving  f o r comparison purposes. A l l  three-year  sample c o n s i s t e d and the NLD  63  paired  longitudinal  (mean age  86.3  study.  The  LD  months; mean  made up of 66 c h i l d r e n (mean age r e s u l t s of the  researchers  CBI  85.9  were s u b j e c t e d  were i n t e r e s t e d only  IQ  to  in profile  shape as opposed t o e l e v a t i o n or s c a t t e r , t h e r e f o r e c o r r e l a t i o n was chosen as the s i m i l a r i t y measure. C l u s t e r s were chosen based upon Ward's minimum v a r i a n c e method and the method of complete  linkage.  Seven c l u s t e r s emerged. Cluster mild  1  attention  seemed t o Cluster  2  be  (28.6%) appeared t o be deficits.  variants  were  Cluster  2  a well-adjusted (25%)  and  Cluster  group w i t h 5  (9.5%)  of normal classroom behaviour. Members of  slightly  members of C l u s t e r 5 who  more  considerate  and  introverted  than  comprised a h i g h e r r a t i o of boys than the  o v e r a l l sample. Members of C l u s t e r 3 (14.3%) who  were e x c l u s i v e l y  male, had  distractibility,  hostility, 4  mild and  a t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t s combined w i t h inconsiderateness.  (11.1%) the m a j o r i t y  (6.3%) had  Cluster 7  Cluster  of whom were female, were c h a r a c t e r i z e d  withdrawn, dependent, and 6  In c o n t r a s t , members of  i n t r o v e r t e d . The  as  small number i n C l u s t e r  mixed d e f i c i t s and were regarded as m i l d v e r s i o n s  (4.88). C l u s t e r 7 comprised t h r e e  black  males who  of  were  44 rated as s e r i o u s l y  i m p a i r e d on a l l s c a l e s .  Speece e t a l . ,  (1985) c a r r i e d o u t i n t e r n a l v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e s e  c l u s t e r s u s i n g s p l i t sample r e p l i c a t i o n which i n v o l v e d r e a n a l y s i n g the  data  of  discriminant function.  two  thirds  analysis  Both  of  t h e sample.  with cluster  methods  confirmed  A  second  method  used  membership  as a d i s c r i m i n a n t  the  cluster  seven  solution.  E x t e r n a l v a l i d a t i o n was a l s o p r o v i d e d b y LD r e s o u r c e t e a c h e r s a n d another  s e t o f b e h a v i o u r a l measures  i n f o r m a t i o n on how t h e c l u s t e r s  which  provided  additional  differed.  A t h r e e - y e a r f o l l o w - u p s t u d y conducted by McKinney and Speece (1986)  examined  subtypes  the longitudinal  stability  of these  behavioural  and t h e academic consequences o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r s .  There  was some l o s s o f s t u d e n t s t h r o u g h a t t r i t i o n s o . t h a t b y y e a r 3 , t h e number o f LD s t u d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y h a d f a l l e n t o 4 7 . T e a c h e r s  rated  t h e b e h a v i o u r o f t h e s u b j e c t s on a y e a r l y b a s i s u s i n g t h e C B I a n d measures o f r e a d i n g and mathematics. was c o n d u c t e d The composite  on t h e s u b t y p e s u s i n g t h e t e a c h e r s ' r a t i n g s .  seven  original  subgroups  attention  deficits,  problems.  Those  problems grades  of  clusters  only  withdrawn  children  and a t t e n t i o n  who  students.  On  collapsed  normal  behaviour  during  to  form  four  behaviour  patterns,  and c l a s s r o o m  management  had e x h i b i t e d  deficits  behaviour p r o f i l e s , three  were  representing  had lower achievement  withdrawn  E a c h y e a r a s e p a r a t e MANOVA  classroom  their  first  behaviour and  second  l e v e l s t h a n t h o s e who h a d n o r m a l  or  although t h e l a t t e r group c o n s i s t e d t h e whole,  membership  i n the four  45 subgroups  remained  o n l y moderately s t a b l e from year t o y e a r . The  normal behaviour subgroup remained t h e most s t a b l e throughout. The most l i k e l y t r e n d over time was f o r l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s t o be c l a s s i f i e d i n an a t y p i c a l subtype r a t h e r than t o move t o a more a d a p t i v e one. B e h a v i o u r a l subtypes a r e summarized i n T a b l e 3. As p a r t o f t h e C a r o l i n a P r o j e c t , a s e r i e s o f language measures were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l sample o f 63 LD students d u r i n g the f i r s t  year o f t h e study. F i f t y - f i v e members o f t h e LD sample  were used t o f i n d and t h e o r i g i n a l  language  subtypes  (Feagans  & Appelbaum,  sample o f 66 NLD students was a l s o  198 6)  included i n  the study. S i x v a r i a b l e s taken from the s e t o f language  measures  were used t o subtype t h e students u s i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative t e c h n i q u e s . S i x c l u s t e r s emerged and t h e i r p r o f i l e s p l o t t e d , u s i n g the s c o r e s o f t h e NLD group as standard r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s f o r each variable. Members  of  Cluster  1  (16%) had  acquired  basic  language  s t r u c t u r e s but were unable t o use these s k i l l s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g and paraphrasing  narratives.  characterized  by s u p e r i o r  The  members  of  Cluster  v o c a b u l a r i e s but l i k e  2  Cluster  were 1 were  unable t o use t h i s knowledge. C l u s t e r 3 had members who t a l k e d a lot,  b u t t h e meaning and substance  of t h e i r  language  was  poor.  Members o f C l u s t e r 4 were t h e o p p o s i t e o f C l u s t e r 1 i n t h a t they had  poor  vocabulary  and syntax  y e t were  able  to  paraphrase  n a r r a t i v e s q u i t e adequately. C l u s t e r 5 was s i m i l a r  i n p r o f i l e to  C l u s t e r 4 but members had s u p e r i o r language s k i l l s .  C l u s t e r 6 was  46  T a b l e 3. S u b t y p e s i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a b l e s and h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative technigues  Authors/ sample McKinney (1984) grade 1 - 2 learningdisabled students  Number &/or name o f s u b t y p e s & characteristics Subtype I I : behaviour s i m i l a r to but more undesirable than Subtype 1  Subtype I I I : b e h a v i o u r s i m i l a r t o but more undesirable than Subtype 2  Subtype 1: w e l l adjusted with mild attention deficits  Subtype 2: normal behavioural profile  Subtype 3: some distractible, hostile & inconsiderate behaviour with mild attention deficits and hyperactivity  Subtype 4: w i t h d r a w n , dependent & introverted  Subtype 5: normal behavioural profile  Subtype 6: dependent, withdrawn & inconsiderate, a mild version of Subtype 7  Subtype I : poor task-oriented b e h a v i o u r , introverted & hostile Subtype IV: N o r m a l behavioural profile  Speece e t a l . (1985) grade 1-2 learningdisabled students  Subtype 7: w i t h d r a w n , dependent , introverted & inconsiderate, e x t r e m e l y distractible & hostile  47 similar syntax  t o C l u s t e r 1 i n t h a t members had s t r o n g v o c a b u l a r y and skills  relative to their narrative s k i l l s .  Subtypes 5 and  6 were c o n s i d e r e d t o e x h i b i t normal language p a t t e r n s . Subtypes  were  validated  using  a  series  of  MANOVAs  Nonverbal IQ s c o r e s and achievement v a r i a b l e s t h a t comprised Reading  Recognition,  Reading  Comprehension  and Math  However, no mention was made o f t h e b e h a v i o u r a l subtypes u s i n g t h e same LD group  of PIAT  subtests. obtained  (Speece e t a l . , 1986), no comparison was  made between b e h a v i o u r a l and language subtypes,  and no i n f e r e n c e s  were drawn. The  third  p r o j e c t t o be d i s c u s s e d was t h e F l o r i d a p r o j e c t  (Satz & M o r r i s , 1981). In an attempt t o a v o i d u s i n g e x c l u s i o n a r y c r i t e r i a t o s e l e c t a l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d sample, c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s was used  t o d e f i n e a t a r g e t subgroup and comparison  subgroups  in a  p o p u l a t i o n t h a t c o n s i s t e d o f 236 white male, grade 6 s t u d e n t s . WRAT achievement s c o r e s were analyzed u s i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l  agglomerative  t e c h n i q u e s . Of t h e nine subtypes t h a t emerged, two had members with sufficiently regarded  depressed  achievement  scores  that  these  two  could  be  as l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d .  There  were  89  students  in  n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d the  they  results  submitted  to hierarchical  clusters.  t o these  agglomerative  Four  students and techniques  p r o d u c i n g f i v e d i s t i n c t and s t a b l e subtypes. The n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s were s e l e c t e d because they loaded h i g h l y on a language f a c t o r and a p e r c e p t u a l f a c t o r . V e r b a l f l u e n c y and t h e WISC S i m i l a r i t i e s  48 s u b t e s t comprised the language f a c t o r and the t e s t o f V i s u a l - M o t o r I n t e g r a t i o n and a t e s t o f v i s u a l up  the perceptual  factors.  r e c o g n i t i o n / d i s c r i m i n a t i o n made  The  Peabody  P i c t u r e Vocabulary  Test  (PPVT) was used as an IQ marker v a r i a b l e and n e u r o l o g i c a l s t a t u s , SES,  parental  Questionnaire Subtype  reading  level  and  the  Children's  Personality  (CPQ) were i n c l u d e d as c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s . 1,  whose  members  were  severely  impaired  on  both  language t e s t s and the PPVT, was c o n s i d e r e d t o r e p r e s e n t a g l o b a l language impairment. Members o f Subtype 2 were impaired o n l y on the v e r b a l f l u e n c y t e s t and were t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be a s p e c i f i c language d i s a b i l i t y subtype. Subtype 3 members were impaired on a l l the n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s , i n c l u d i n g the PPVT, and were thought t o have a mixed-type g l o b a l language and p e r c e p t u a l impairment. A perceptual-motor impairment  c h a r a c t e r i z e d the members o f  4  the p e r c e p t u a l  who  performed  regarded  as  impairment  an  poorly  on  unexpected  group  because  on the n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l  tests.  Subtype  i t s members  v a r i a b l e s . The  Subtype 5  showed  language  was no and  n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l subtypes o f the C a r o l i n a (Feagans & Appelbaum, 1986)  and F l o r i d a  Table  4.  (Satz & M o r r i s , 1981)  s t u d i e s are summarized  Satz and M o r r i s (1981) r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e i r study was  in  limited  by : 1) the r e s t r i c t e d range o f r e a d i n g s k i l l s sampled, 2) the use of o n l y f o u r n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s f o r c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s , 3 ) the e x c l u s i o n o f a subgroup whose members were impaired o n l y on the A r i t h m e t i c s u b t e s t , 4) the use o f a h i g h l y homogeneous white male  49  T a b l e 4. S u b t y p e s i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n d / o r l a n g u a g e v a r i a b l e s and h i e r a r c h i c a l a g g l o m e r a t i v e t e c h n i g u e s  Authors/ sample  Number &/or name o f s u b t y p e s & characteristics  Language v a r i a b l e s Feagans & Appelbaum (1986) Grade 1-2 learning disabled students  S u b t y p e 1: p o o r understanding & paraphrasing of n a r r a t i v e , adequate language skills  Subtype 2: p o o r understanding & paraphrasing of n a r r a t i v e , s u p e r i o r vocabulary  Subtype 3: t a l k e d a l o t but meaning & substance of language poor  S ubtype 4: a d e q u a t e understanding & paraphrasing of n a r r a t i v e , poor vocabulary  Subtype 5: s u p e r i o r language ability  Subtype 6: a d e q u a t e understanding & paraphrasing of narrative, good v o c a b u l a r y & syntax s k i l l s  Language & n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s Satz & M o r r i s (1981) Grade 6 white male learning disabled students  Subtype 1: g l o b a l l a n g u a g e impairment  Subtype 2: s p e c i f i c language d i s a b i l i t y (verbal fluency)  Subtype 4: perceptual-motor impairment  Subtype 5: no neurological impairment  Subtype 3: mixed-type g l o b a l language and p e r c e p t u a l impairment  50 sample, 5) the s m a l l number of c r i t e r i o n measures used t o v a l i d a t e the  subtypes,  intellectual  and  6)  the  use  of  the  PPVT  a  measure  i t was  Approach  hoped t h a t c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s would r e d r e s s the  l i m i t a t i o n s of the more s u b j e c t i v e methods of subtyping had  i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . The  discovery  of  this  too  e x p e c t a t i o n s were t h a t the c l u s t e r i n g of  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students the  of  ability.  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Subtyping  Although  as  i n t o homogeneous subtypes would l e a d t o  underlying  causes  of  the  disorder  and  enable  remedial programs t o be planned. However, problems i n terminology, labelling,  a p p l i c a t i o n and  v a l i d a t i o n were i d e n t i f i e d  (Morris e t  a l . , 1981). These problems appear t o be r e l a t e d t o the l a r g e number of a v a i l a b l e techniques,  t h e i r complexity,  and  researchers'  lack  of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h them. One  l i m i t a t i o n of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t u d i e s i s t h a t the subtypes  can o n l y be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of the v a r i a b l e s used t o them. Subtypes i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l described  in  terms  neuropsychological 1979)).  Those  v a r i a b l e s are  of  the  processes  identified described  reading s u b s k i l l s  efficient operate, using  or  v a r i a b l e s are  inefficient  ways  (e.g., Petruskas  reading  and  i n terms of s t r e n g t h s  the  & Rourke,  reading and  identify  related  weaknesses i n  (e.g., Doehring e t a l , 1981). Those  identified  u s i n g b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n terms of a p p r o p r i a t e  51 and i n a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour p a t t e r n s  (e.g., Speece e t a l , 1985).  S i m i l a r subtypes a r e produced, even when used w i t h samples o f a d i f f e r e n t nature Fisk  & Rourke,  (Doehring & Hoshko, 1979; Petruskas  different  subtypes  a r e produced  different  variables  a r e used  Appelbaum, mention  1977; Doehring e t a l . , 1981;  & Rourke, within  (Doehring  1979).  t h e same  In  contrast,  samples  when  e t a l , . 1981; Feagans &  1896; Speece e t a l , 1985). In t h e C a r o l i n a p r o j e c t , no  has been  made  of a relationship,  i f any, between the  subtypes o b t a i n e d u s i n g b e h a v i o u r a l v a r i a b l e s and those  obtained  u s i n g language v a r i a b l e s . Another l i m i t a t i o n concerns d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e a d i n g and l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d samples and i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n techniques used, a l l o f which make i t d i f f i c u l t to  study  or  generalize  populations. E l l i s  t o compare subtypes from study  findings  to  other  reading-disabled  (1985) p o i n t e d out t h e anomalies c r e a t e d when  subtypes produced by d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s a r e compared w i t h each other and gave t h e f o l l o w i n g example. The language d i s o r d e r e d subtype of M a t t i s e t a l . (1975) was compared with t h e i r deficit compared  by Doehring and Hoshko  Subtype 1 which was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an o r a l  (Doehring by Boder  & Hoshko, (1973)  with  1977).  The same  her dysphonetic  (Ellis,  also  subtype. Boder's  w i t h t h e i r Subtype 2 which was impaired only on a t e s t  awry"  reading  subtype was  d y s p h o n e t i c subtype was i n t u r n compared by Satz and M o r r i s  f l u e n c y . In E l l i s ' s  (1977)  (1981)  of verbal  words, "Something somewhere has o b v i o u s l y gone  1985, p. 180). The s u b t y p i n g l i t e r a t u r e i s studded  52 w i t h s i m i l a r anomalies. Ellis  a l s o noted t h a t some r e s e a r c h e r s  seem t o b e l i e v e t h a t  "the d y s l e x i c s u b s t r a t e i s n a t u r a l l y f i s s u r e d , and t h a t v i r t u a l l y any  form o f a g i t a t i o n w i l l cause i t t o c l e a v e along s i m i l a r  lines"  (p.  180) . The f u t i l i t y  i n the  of t h i s  p o i n t o f view  i s evident  o v e r l a p o f subtype d e f i c i t s , t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t remain u n c l a s s i f i e d , and t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t have mixed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . A  major  criticism  levelled  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f subtypes p r o v i d e s the  identified  Fletcher  deficit  and Satz  integration  affects  by  little  reading  (1984)  subtypes  process.  Taylor,  that  there  i s a lack of  and  their  neurological  e v a l u a t i o n , and no d e t a i l e d e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e a d i n g is  i s that  i n f o r m a t i o n as t o how  the reading  (1982) a l s o p e r c e i v e  between  Lovett  dysfunction  supplied.  Componential A n a l y s i s  In d e v e l o p i n g t h e procedure known as "componential a n a l y s i s " , Sternberg  (1977) attempted t o c a p i t a l i z e on t h e s t r e n g t h s o f both  the d i f f e r e n t i a l and i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approaches. The purpose was  to isolate  the components  of i n t e l l i g e n t  performance and  d i s c o v e r t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e l a t i o n s h i p . Sternberg definition  o f a component on t h a t o f Newel and Simon  component i s an elementary i n f o r m a t i o n process i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f o b j e c t s o r symbols"  based h i s (1972) . "A  t h a t operates  upon  (Sternberg, 1977,  53 p. 65). He t h e o r i z e d t h a t c o g n i t i v e behaviour by a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l number of component Componential identification  analysis  of  combination  rule  combination  rule  is  component  processes.  divided  into  processes,  for different  c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d  five  steps:  specification  components,  of  specification  a  of a  f o r the same components, d i s c o v e r y o f component  l a t e n c i e s , and d i s c o v e r y of r e l a t i o n s of components t o each other and t o h i g h e r mental a b i l i t i e s Analogical intelligence  reasoning  and  (Sternberg, 1977).  i s viewed  i s often  used  as  an  i n tests  important of  aspect  reasoning  of  ability  (Sternberg, 1977). In reviewing theory and r e s e a r c h i n a n a l o g i c a l reasoning,  Sternberg  were incomplete, and  (1977) found  unsupported by e m p i r i c a l evidence,  narrow, and unable  information  t h a t i n g e n e r a l most t h e o r i e s  t o account  processing.  He  for individual  developed  a  theory  too s p e c i f i c  differences i n of a n a l o g i c a l  r e a s o n i n g t o r e d r e s s most of these weaknesses and used analysis  of  analogical  reasoning  tasks  to  componential  provide  evidence t o support  i t (Sternberg, 1977; Sternberg  Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979).  empirical  & Nigro, 1 9 8 0 ;  The a n a l o g i e s take the form A i s t o B as C i s t o D (A:B::C:D) where D i s e i t h e r D i o r D2, the answer o p t i o n s . S t e r n b e r g proposed six  components  f o r a n a l o g i c a l reasoning:  encoding,  inference,  mapping, a p p l i c a t i o n , j u s t i f i c a t i o n , and p r e p a r a t i o n / r e s p o n s e . The encoding  component  terms o f the analogy  r e q u i r e s the s u b j e c t t o look  a t each  of the  (A, B, C, D i , & D2) and a t t a c h meaning t o them.  54  In  making  an  inference  the s u b j e c t  establishes  a relationship  between the f i r s t and second terms (A & B) and i n mapping, between the f i r s t and t h i r d terms (A & C) . A p p l i c a t i o n r e q u i r e s the s u b j e c t t o e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t h i r d term the answer o p t i o n s  (C) and one of  (Di& D2) t h a t i s analogous t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  i n f e r r e d between the f i r s t two terms. J u s t i f i c a t i o n i s the process whereby  the  another  subject  when  decides  neither  one  of  them  answer  option  exactly  i s better  fits  the  than  perceived  r e l a t i o n s h i p . In making a response the s u b j e c t chooses one of the response o p t i o n s  ( D i o r D2) and i n d i c a t e s t h a t c h o i c e  The combination r u l e may  specify processing  i n some way.  t o be s e r i a l as  opposed t o p a r a l l e l , exhaustive as opposed t o s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g , or holistic serial  as opposed t o a n a l y t i c . I f components  order,  the t o t a l  time  i s the sum  a r e executed i n  o f the time  taken t o  p r o c e s s t h e i n d i v i d u a l components. S i m i l a r l y , the time f o r m u l t i p l e e x e c u t i o n s o f one component If  i s the sum o f a l l s i n g l e  t h e components a r e processed i n p a r a l l e l ,  executions.  then the t o t a l  time  i s equal t o t h a t of the most time-consuming component. The time f o r m u l t i p l e e x e c u t i o n s i n p a r a l l e l o f one component most time-consuming s i n g l e  execution.  E x h a u s t i v e and s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g p r o c e s s i n g or  strategy  processing  used  i s equal t o the  i n executing  the components.  r e f e r t o the mode When  exhaustive  i s s p e c i f i e d , a l l t h e o r i z e d components a r e executed the  maximum number o f times. When a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g s t r a t e g y i s used, components a r e executed o n l y the necessary number o f times. I f the  55  a n a l y t i c method i s t h e o r i z e d , then s e p a r a b l e p r o c e s s e s a r e assumed t o be used. The h o l i s t i c method o f p r o c e s s i n g makes i t i m p o s s i b l e to  separate  t h e time  taken  f o r the execution  o f one  component  p r o c e s s from t h e o t h e r s . Analogical  reasoning  i s t h e o r i z e d t o be p r o c e s s e d  which means t h a t s o l u t i o n time f o r one analogy time taken t o execute  each component used  serially  i s t h e sum o f the  i n the s o l u t i o n .  It is  a l s o assumed t h a t components a r e processed a n a l y t i c a l l y , making i t possible  t o separate  their  execution  times.  However,  there are  o c c a s i o n s when m u l t i p l e e x e c u t i o n s o f t h e same component a r e not always assumed t o be a n a l y t i c .  F o r degenerate  forms o f a n a l o g i e s  ( i . e . , f i r s t and t h i r d terms a r e i d e n t i c a l making second and f o u r t h terms i d e n t i c a l ) , h o l i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g i s assumed. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e components and s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f a combination  rule  are the t h e o r e t i c a l  aspects  of  componential  a n a l y s i s b u t t h e o r y alone cannot f u l l y e x p l a i n t h e behaviour being s t u d i e d . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s necessary t o d e v i s e models t h a t s p e c i f y the o r d e r o f e x e c u t i o n o f t h e components and t h e mode o f e x e c u t i o n . D i f f e r e n t models a r e t h e o r i z e d f o r d i f f e r e n t modes o f p r o c e s s i n g ; the  models o f a n a l o g i c a l  reasoning  specify  both  e x h a u s t i v e and  s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g modes. The models a r e d i s p l a y e d p i c t o r i a l l y flow c h a r t s and mathematically tested empirically  as equations  (see Sternberg,  so t h a t they  as  can be  1977).  A t a s k i s broken down i n t o a s e r i e s o f subtasks t h a t generate i n t e r v a l s c o r e s o r l a t e n c i e s . These s c o r e s r e p r e s e n t t h e time taken  56  to process become  successively  successively  achieved  l e s s information  shorter.  Estimation  t h a t must be are  done t o s o l v e the  dependent upon the  verbal analogies, attribute  regression and  component  the amount o f  semantic d i s t a n c e  is  or, i n the case of p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s ,  values  that  can  c o e f f i c i e n t s are  model which b e s t  f i t s the  Componential examined  at  change  from  theory,  term  individuals  may  which  differ  the number  to  term.  i n t e r p r e t e d as e s t i m a t e s of  enables  model,  theory l e v e l , i n d i v i d u a l s may r u l e with  reasoning  The  duration  They are  parameter  c a l c u l a t e d from the  component  data.  analysis  the  processing  between terms f o r  d i f f i c u l t y of a s i n g l e component process.  the  time  analogy. In a n a l o g i c a l  estimates f o r i n d i v i d u a l subjects,  in  time i n t e r v a l s  independent or p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each component r e p r e s e n t  of  of  the  through m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s u s i n g t a s k l a t e n c i e s  as the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The  they  and  individual differences  the  d i f f e r i n the components they use  and  i n the  componential  combine them. At order  mode they  i n which  adopt. At  the  levels.  be  At  they  and  to  the  model  they  components and  i n the  i n d i v i d u a l s may  d i f f e r i n t h e i r speed and power of  level,  process  component  the  level,  processing.  E x t e r n a l v a l i d a t i o n of the component s c o r e s i s e s t a b l i s h e d by showing t h a t they c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h t e s t s of mental  ability.  One v a r i a b l e i s the score on such a t e s t and the other i s component latency  or  difficulty  estimated  at  the  individual  level.  component a b i l i t i e s can account f o r almost a l l the v a r i a n c e  If  i n the  57 t e s t s c o r e , then the nature of the a b i l i t y t h a t i s b e i n g measured i s i n d i c a t e d . Components can a l s o be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each other t o g i v e an  indication  of the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between them i n terms of  the time taken f o r each component process and degree of d i f f i c u l t y .  A p p l i c a t i o n o f Componential A n a l y s i s  In Sternberg's f i r s t s t u d i e s , r e a s o n i n g t a s k s were broken i n t o a  series  of  subtasks  through  a method  of  precuing  1978). In t h i s method, p a r t of a t a s k i s presented  (Sternberg,  i n an untimed  s i t u a t i o n (precued), then the amount of time taken t o complete the task  is  measured.  Interval  scores  that  represent  stages  p r o c e s s i n g are formed by v a r y i n g the amount of p r e c u i n g .  Sternberg  made the assumption of a d d i t i v i t y with r e s p e c t t o i n t e r v a l and  was  able  to  show  empirically that  such  an  1977) ,  syllogistic  reasoning  (Sternberg,  Advantages would otherwise otherwise  be  included:  1)  was  (Sternberg,  1980a;  1980b),  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a s k s , s e r i e s completion t a s k s , and topology s p a t i a l problems (Sternberg,  scores  assumption  t e n a b l e . T h i s method was used w i t h a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g  of  (visual  1978). disentanglement  of  components  that  be confounded, 2) comparison of models t h a t would  i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , 3)  an  i n c r e a s e i n the  number of  data p o i n t s t o be modelled, 4) the n e c e s s i t y f o r e x p l i c a t i o n of the model i n d e t a i l ,  and  5) p r o v i s i o n of a s e r i e s of nested  interval  s c o r e s r a t h e r than a s i n g l e s o l u t i o n s c o r e . L a t e r methods i n c l u d e d  58 presentation  of  partial  tasks  which  was  used  with  syllogistic  r e a s o n i n g (Sternberg, 1980b), a method of s t e m - s p l i t t i n g used w i t h verbal  analogies  systematically  (Sternberg  varied  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  &  Nigro,  booklets  1980),  used  with  and  a  method  picture  of  analogies  1979).  O r i g i n a l l y , the theory of a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g processes t e s t e d u s i n g u n i v e r s i t y students a variety  (Sternberg, 1977). S t u d i e s u s i n g  of a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g  those s u b j e c t s who  was  tasks  showed t h a t , g e n e r a l l y ,  spent more time on encoding s o l v e d the a n a l o g i e s  i n l e s s time and were more s u c c e s s f u l . There was a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n that  subjects  higher  in  reasoning  ability  tended  to  be  more  s y s t e m a t i c i n t h e i r s o l u t i o n s t r a t e g y (Sternberg, 1977). Later  the  theory  generalizability  and  r e a s o n i n g processes was  used w i t h  measure  in children  the  child  subjects to test i t s  development  of  analogical  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979). T h i s  done u s i n g two k i n d s of p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s (see F i g u r e 1) which  were p r e s e n t e d analogies special  v i a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d b o o k l e t s . These p i c t u r e  enabled  s u b j e c t s t o be  equipment,  and  because no r e a d i n g was shown i n F i g u r e their (hat  was  1,  attributes. colour,  suit  t e s t e d i n groups,  were p r a c t i c a l  even w i t h  required  young  no  children  r e q u i r e d . The Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s ,  c o n s i s t s of  figures  t h a t are  T h i s means t h a t the a t t r i b u t e s pattern,  footwear,  and  hand  separable of the  baggage)  from  figures can  be  removed and the f i g u r e s w i l l remain i n t a c t . People P i e c e A n a l o g i e s (see F i g u r e 1) c o n s i s t of f i g u r e s w i t h i n t e g r a l a t t r i b u t e s .  The  ( i ) Schematic P i c t u r e Analogy  F i g u r e 1. P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s  60 a t t r i b u t e s of these f i g u r e s (weight, h e i g h t , gender or c o l o u r ) are i n t e g r a t e d w i t h the f i g u r e . The removal of an a t t r i b u t e , t h e r e f o r e , removes or i n t e r f e r e s w i t h the i n t a c t n e s s of the The  current  Analogies  and  study  is  concerned  discussion w i l l  focus  with  on  the  figure.  Schematic research  Picture  concerning  these. Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s , shown i n F i g u r e 2, v a r y i n f o u r binary  attributes;  (striped, footwear The  hat  dotted), (shoes,  colour  hand  (white,  baggage  black),  (brief  case,  suit  pattern  umbrella),  b o o t s ) . These are the a t t r i b u t e s t o be  i n f e r e n c e , mapping, and  and  encoded.  a p p l i c a t i o n components are  explained  i n F i g u r e 2 i n terms of a t t r i b u t e changes from term t o term. combination  The  r u l e f o r the t o t a l time taken t o process the components  is additive. A  basic  difference  between  analogies  with  integral  and  s e p a r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s concerns the p s y c h o l o g i c a l mechanisms t o which they are s u b j e c t e d  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  p r o c e s s i n g of a n a l o g i e s with separable  attributes,  differentiation "procedures"  and  made  integral attributes  Sternberg by  1979). To d i s t i n g u i s h  Perfetti  "strategies".  "A  and and  from those  Rifkin  (1977)  is  a  A  strategy  is  an  processing: Subjects  the  between  nonoptional,  nonconscious model of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : S u b j e c t s a procedure w i t h l i t t l e  with  adapted  Lesgold  procedure  the  c a r r y out  or no awareness of what i s t a k i n g p l a c e .  optional  conscious  model  of  c a r r y out a s t r a t e g y f e e l i n g  what i s t a k i n g p l a c e " (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979,  information  fully  pp.  aware of  199-200).  B  Dl  D2  Components 1.  2.  Encoding:  Inference:  Attributes  Values  hat c o l o u r s u i t pattern footwear handgear  b l a c k , white striped, dotted shoes, boots umbrella, s u i t c a s e  the hat (no (no  r e l a t i o n s h i p between A and B c o l o u r (black t o w h i t e ) , s u i t p a t t e r n change), footwear (boots t o s h o e s ) , handgear change)  Mapping:  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between A and C hat c o l o u r (no change), s u i t p a t t e r n d o t t e d t o s t r i p e d , footwear (no change) handgear (no change)  Application:  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between C and D l hat c o l o u r (white t o b l a c k ) , s u i t p a t t e r n (no change), footwear (boots t o s h o e s ) , handgear (no change the r e l a t i o n s h i p between C and D2 hat c o l o u r (no change), s u i t p a t t e r n ( s t r i p e d t o d o t t e d ) , footwear (no change), handgear ( s u i t c a s e t o u m b r e l l a  5.  Response:  c i r c l e around Di o r D2  Combination Rule; T o t a l Time i s the sum of encoding time, i n f e r e n c e time, a p p l i c a t i o n time, and response time. F i g u r e 2. Schematic P i c t u r e Analogy  62  Of  t h e models  suggested  by  Sternberg  (1977) ,  four are  p r o c e d u r a l models a p p l i c a b l e t o a n a l o g i e s with i n t e g r a l a t t r i b u t e s and  r e f e r r e d t o as Models I , I I , I I I , and IV (see Table 5 ) . These  p r o c e d u r a l models combine exhaustive encoding w i t h o t h e r components in  exhaustive  and s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode.  They  also  contain  mapping component but t h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n component  a  as only  one o f t h e answer o p t i o n s i s c o r r e c t . I t i s t h e r e f o r e necessary f o r s u b j e c t s t o s t o r e a l l a t t r i b u t e s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g v a l u e s i n s h o r t term memory t o f a c i l i t a t e l a t e r analogy The t h r e e  other  models  (Table  solution.  5) a r e m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e  p r o c e d u r a l models r e f e r r e d t o as Models IM, I I - I I I M , and IVM. These s t r a t e g i c models d i f f e r from t h e p r o c e d u r a l models i n two ways t h a t are l i n k e d t o t h e s e p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e a t t r i b u t e s i n t h e Schematic Picture  Analogies.  The f i r s t  d i f f e r e n c e i s t h e absence o f the  Mapping component  and t h e second i s t h e change from e x h a u s t i v e t o  self-terminating  encoding  terminating  immediately  attribute-comparison  before  process.  the f i r s t  Thus Model  IM  selfdiffers  from Model I o n l y through t h e absence o f t h e mapping component and all  components  combination  a r e processed  o f Models I I and I I I because they  the Mapping component first term  exhaustively.  Model  II-IIIM  is a  a r e i d e n t i c a l when  i s removed. Encoding i s e x h a u s t i v e  f o r the  two terms (A & B) but becomes s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g when the C i s encoded.  This  means t h a t  inference  i s exhaustive  but  a p p l i c a t i o n i s s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g . I n t h e IVM model, encoding becomes s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g w i t h t h e f i r s t term o f t h e analogy  (A) and t h e  63  T a b l e 5. Sternberg's t h e o r e t i c a l models  Model  Components  Procedural  models exh  I  encoding  II  encoding  III  encoding  exh  exh  exh  exh  st  + response st  +  application  st  + mapping  + response  + application  st  + mapping  st  + inference  exh  + application  exh  + mapping  + inference exh  encoding  + mapping  + inference exh  IV  exh  + inference  + response st  +  application  + response  S t r a t e g i c models IM  encoding  IIM-IIM  encoding  IVM  encoding  exh  +  exh/st  +  exh  inference  +  exh  inference  st  exh = e x h a u s t i v e mode st = self-terminating  application  exh  inference  mode  response  +  response  st  +  application  st  +  +  st  +  application  +  response  64 o t h e r components a r e processed  i n s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode.  The s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d b o o k l e t s each c o n t a i n 16 schematic picture  analogies.  The b o o k l e t s  a r e "homogeneous"  i n t h a t the  number o f a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s t h a t change from A t o B, A t o C, and Di t o D2(the answer options) remain constant w i t h i n b o o k l e t s . Students are g i v e n 64 seconds p e r b o o k l e t t o s o l v e as many a n a l o g i e s as they can. Three dependent v a r i a b l e scores a r e obtained f o r each b o o k l e t . Mean  solution latency  correct  number o f seconds allowed  i s obtained  by d i v i d i n g  t o s o l v e each booklet)  64 (the  by t h e number of  a n a l o g i e s s o l v e d c o r r e c t l y . T h i s r e f l e c t s q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f performance. S i m i l a r l y , a mean s o l u t i o n l a t e n c y t o t a l by  dividing  64  by t h e t o t a l  number  of analogies  i s obtained  solved.  This  r e f l e c t s o n l y q u a n t i t y o f performance. The t h i r d v a r i a b l e , e r r o r r a t e , which  i s obtained  by d i v i d i n g t h e number o f e r r o r s by the  number o f a n a l o g i e s s o l v e d , r e f l e c t s only q u a l i t y o f performance, Independent component terms  and  Objective number  v a r i a b l e s are associated with  and c o n s i s t o f " o b j e c t i v e " d i s t a n c e s depend  upon  distances  t h e mode  i n these  of a t t r i b u t e values  change  theoretical  between  of processing  analogies  that  each  analogy  that  i s used.  a r e dependent  upon the  from  term  t o term.  The  degree o f d i f f i c u l t y i s r e l a t e d t o t h e number o f a t t r i b u t e changes. Therefore,  t h e components w i t h  the g r e a t e r  number  changes r e q u i r e more p r o c e s s i n g and take more time.  of a t t r i b u t e  65 When components are processed e x h a u s t i v e l y , variables  are  between the  directly  equal t o the  appropriate  number of a t t r i b u t e changes  terms of the  s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode, the v a l u e s  the v a l u e s of the  analogy. When p r o c e s s e d  in  of the v a r i a b l e s are c a l c u l a t e d  by a p p l y i n g a m u l t i p l i e r t o the number of a t t r i b u t e changes between the  appropriate  terms.  a t t r i b u t e s t h a t can number of v a l u e s  The  multiplier  is  dependent  or 3)  of Di t h a t are  the  and  the  same as D2  (the  (always 4)  be p r o c e s s e d e x h a u s t i v e l y  (1, 2,  upon  the  answer o p t i o n s ) . The  basic  Analogies  design  consists  of  of  an  the  experiment crossing  using  of  Schematic  subjects,  Picture  whose  scores  r e p r e s e n t mean l a t e n c i e s , w i t h the t e s t m a t e r i a l s . E s t i m a t e s of the time taken multiple  to  process  regression  variables describe Sternberg enroled adult  each of  analysis using  Rifkin  i n grades 2, 4, and  University. sexes and  and  of 21  (mean age  years),  adult  population considered  18  that as  the the  are  obtained  independent and  (1979) used  the  from  dependent  method w i t h  6 a t a r e l i g i o u s day  undergraduate  fourth graders  evidence  the  equally  second graders  adult  (mean age  divided  (mean age  students  elementary  school  were  19  drawn  among  the  (mean age  12  There was  no  from but  i t reasonable t o suppose t h a t the a d u l t  Yale  8 years) , 22  years).  students  with  attending  10 y e a r s ) , 18 s i x t h graders  students  subjects  s c h o o l , and  students  Groups were approximately  consisted  and  components  previously.  and  graduate  the  the  the  same  authors  students  66 represented  a group t h a t was f u r t h e r along  i n the  developmental  sequence. Students  were t e s t e d i n l a r g e groups. They r e c e i v e d 2 4 t e s t  b o o k l e t s each c o n t a i n i n g 16 schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s . They a l s o r e c e i v e d a geometric  a n a l o g i e s t e s t and a t e s t o f p e r c e p t u a l speed  but S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n c o n s i d e r e d t h e r e s u l t s u n i n t e r e s t i n g and t h e r e f o r e d i d not d i s c u s s them. The s c h o o l c h i l d r e n completed the procedures one  long  i n f i v e s e s s i o n s o f about 3 0 minutes and t h e a d u l t s i n session  with  a  rest  break  i n t h e middle.  However,  a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e a n a l o g i e s i n so many s h o r t s e s s i o n s may have been unnecessary,  as i n Experiment 2 t h e 24 People P i e c e b o o k l e t s were  a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a s i n g l e s e s s i o n t o a l l except grade 2 students. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s and a b i l i t y t e s t s comprised  Experiment 1 i n the study o f Sternberg and R i f k i n  (1979). The People P i e c e A n a l o g i e s , which were a d m i n i s t e r e d a year later  with  comprised  different Experiment  student  samples  from  t h e same p o p u l a t i o n ,  2. As t h e Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s  used i n t h e c u r r e n t study, d i s c u s s i o n w i l l  were  focus on Experiment 1.  As expected, t h e mapping component was found t o be unnecessary f o r s o l u t i o n of analogies with separable a t t r i b u t e s ,  although i t  was used by a l l Grade 2 students i n s o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s w i t h i n t e g r a l a t t r i b u t e s . The m o d i f i e d s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g model was t h e p r e f e r r e d model o f a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g a t each age l e v e l . There was evidence t h a t t h e r e were b e t t e r model f i t s a t h i g h e r age l e v e l than ones,  suggesting  greater  overall  consistency  i n t h e data  lower with  67 i n c r e a s i n g age. Sternberg adult  reasoners  took longer  ones and suggested speed  and  (1977) had showed t h a t more s u c c e s s f u l  that  t h e speed  t o encode s t i m u l i  there  than  unsuccessful  was a t r a d e - o f f between  o f performing  later  encoding  operations.  In t h e  S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n study, t h e same p a t t e r n s emerged, l e a d i n g them to  s t a t e , "The more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g y then  i s to  lengthen  one's encoding l a t e n c y i n order t o shorten one's comparison l a t e n c y (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979, p. 230).  A study by Wilson fourth  grade  metropolitan  (1980) used Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s with  students area  attending  four  elementary  i n southwestern B r i t i s h  Columbia,  students r e p r e s e n t e d a range o f socioeconomic a  variety  of  ethnic  backgrounds.  schools  They  had  been  (NCEs) which  routinely  (CBTS) d u r i n g t h e i r  grade 3 year. T h e i r p e r c e n t i l e s c o r e s were transformed scores  Canada. The  l e v e l s and came from  a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e Canadian T e s t o f B a s i c S k i l l s  Curve E q u i v a l e n t  in a  a r e equal  i n t o Normal  interval  scores  (Mean 100, SD 21.06). Three represent  samples  o f twenty  students  low, average, and h i g h a b i l i t y  each  d e v i a t i o n s below the  (group mean 36.51), t h e average a b i l i t y  ranged between one standard  selected to  l e v e l s . The low a b i l i t y  group had s c o r e s from one t o t h r e e standard sample mean  were  group  scores  d e v i a t i o n above and below t h e sample  mean (group mean 60.92), and t h e h i g h a b i l i t y group s c o r e s ranged from one t o t h r e e standard d e v i a t i o n s above t h e sample mean (group  68 mean 89.66). The mean ages f o r t h e low, average, groups were 9 y e a r s  9 months, 9 years  and h i g h  ability  8 months, and 9 years 8  months, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The  Schematic  P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d  s e s s i o n s o f approximately ranged were  over  two  an hour each t o groups o f students t h a t  i n number from a minimum o f 11 t o a maximum o f 22. Students  given  answers  64  were  seconds t o s o l v e each recorded  on  a  analogy  separate  booklet  sheet.  Three  and  their  criterion  v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d but the v a r i a n c e i n C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e 3 ( e r r o r r a t e ) was judged i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r a n a l y s i s t o take p l a c e . F o l l o w i n g t h e method o f S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n of  t h e remaining  Criterion  data was  Variable 1  carried  (mean  out but o n l y t h e r e s u l t s f o r  l a t e n c y c o r r e c t ) were  d i s c u s s e d . R e s u l t s f o r the average similar  t o those  obtained  (1979) a n a l y s i s  by  r e p o r t e d and  and h i g h a b i l i t y  Sternberg  and  groups were  Rifkin,  showing  a  p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e m o d i f i e d s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g model. However, the low  ability  model.  group  appeared  In g e n e r a l ,  devoted  more  time  the high  There  ability  t o encoding,  s t r a t e g y more c o n s i s t e n t l y . component.  to marginally  was  and  p r e f e r an  group used  was the  more  that  one  or  accurate,  self-terminating  None of t h e groups used  evidence  exhaustive  the mapping  more  additional  s y s t e m a t i c f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e l a t e n c y data for  t h e low  accounted  ability  group.  These  additional  factors  were not  f o r by any o f t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d models. I t was  suggested  69 t h a t such f a c t o r s might be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n response style. In  a  processes  study  that  (Sternberg  essentially  &  Ketron,  investigated  1982),  metacognitive  t h e Schematic  Picture  A n a l o g i e s and t h e People P i e c e A n a l o g i e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o Yale U n i v e r s i t y students who were t r a i n e d t o use one o f t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s o r not t r a i n e d a t a l l . One hundred and s i x t y were  divided  received People that  into  eight  t h e Schematic  groups  o f twenty.  P i c t u r e Analogies  Four  students  o f t h e groups  and f o u r  r e c e i v e d the  P i e c e A n a l o g i e s . In a d d i t i o n they were a d m i n i s t e r e d  measured r e a s o n i n g  and memory  pertaining  t o the strategy  Discussion  will  Picture  centre  Analogies  they  on those  although  as w e l l  used  tests  as a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  to solve  the analogies.  results  that  concern  Schematic  the r e s u l t s  from  t h e People  Piece  A n a l o g i e s w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as a p p r o p r i a t e . For each s e t o f a n a l o g i e s , students were t r a i n e d  t o use a s p e c i f i c  i n t h r e e o f t h e groups  strategy t o solve the analogies;  those i n t h e f o u r t h group were t o l d t o s o l v e them " i n whatever way you t h i n k i s b e s t " . The t r a i n e d groups were each t o l d t o proceed through  three  consider  stages.  The f u l l y  a l l the options  exhaustive  a t each  stage  group  were  of processing  told to before  s e l e c t i n g an answer; those i n t h e f u l l y s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g group were t o l d t o p r o c e s s , a t each stage, only as much i n f o r m a t i o n as needed to  arrive  at a solution;  and those  i n t h e mixed c o n d i t i o n group  were t o l d t o f i n d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l l t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f  70  the A and  B terms (exhaustive  inference)  and  then p r o c e s s o n l y  as  much i n f o r m a t i o n as needed ( s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n ) t o s e l e c t an answer. B a s i c a l l y , f o r a n a l o g i e s w i t h separable f u l l y e x h a u s t i v e group was t e r m i n a t i n g group was was  t r a i n e d t o use Model IM, the f u l l y  t r a i n e d t o use Model IVM,  t r a i n e d t o use Model  use  a  strategy  desired to  Schematic  strategy  solve  Picture  or  People  trained  use  majority  of s t u d e n t s used Model IVM  t h a t s t r a t e g y or  Results  from the  Model  Analogies.  IM  may  students  approximation In  r e s u l t s showed t h a t  students  t o use  and the mixed group  p o s s i b l e to t r a i n  reasonable  Piece  Analogies to  self-  II-IIIM.  T h i s study i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was to  a t t r i b u t e s , the  have  to  that  contrast,  the  although  used  Model  whether they had  a  few  IV,  the  been t r a i n e d  not. questionnaire  indicated that  i n t e r a c t i o n between content type and s t r a t e g y use.  there  was  an  Students i n the  i n t e g r a l - a t t r i b u t e groups appeared t o f o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s they were g i v e n , and t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s of what they d i d were c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r were  s t r a t e g y use.  unable  follow  the  separable  instructions  a t t r i b u t e groups but  their  q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses i n d i c a t e d t h a t they thought they had  indeed  followed  to  Those i n the  i n s t r u c t i o n s . Sternberg  and  Ketron  given,  concluded  that  a c c u r a c y of s e l f - r e p o r t i s dependent, at l e a s t i n p a r t , upon content of a g i v e n  the the  task.  S i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between s e p a r a b l e - a t t r i b u t e s o l u t i o n l a t e n c y and t e s t s of a b s t r a c t reasoning  were observed o n l y f o r the  71 untrained  students  and those  trained  t o use a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g  mode. Thus t r a i n i n g students t o use a s t r a t e g y they would not have used  spontaneously  latency  appears  and psychometric  questionnaire  responses  t o reduce  the c o r r e l a t i o n  of task  task  performance.  C o r r e l a t i o n s between  and  task  f o r analogies  s e p a r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s suggest  scores  with  t h a t those who s o l v e d t h e a n a l o g i e s  f a s t e s t b e l i e v e d they worked q u i c k l y , found t h e s t r a t e g y they used easy  to learn  and maintain,  were  most  conscious  of t h e i r  own  s t r a t e g y use and were o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t p l a c e d l e s s demand upon memory. Sternberg compulsion  and Ketron  (1982) suggest  t o solve analogies with  that there  separable  i s a strong  attributes  using a  s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode t h a t cannot be e a s i l y overcome w i t h t r a i n i n g . They note, from p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h (Sternberg & R i f k i n , 1979), t h a t this  i s t h e model  of choice  from  childhood  t o adulthood  and  conclude t h a t spontaneous use o f t h i s , t h e most e f f i c a c i o u s model, i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e model. Throughout Sternberg's  r e s e a r c h u s i n g componential  one f i n d i n g continued t o p e r p l e x  (Sternberg,  analysis,  1981). T h i s was t h e  c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h and r e p l i c a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e r e g r e s s i o n constant,  which  represented  intelligence  test  scores.  componential  procedures  the  Sternberg  of task  response (1981)  component,  theorized  decomposition  were  and  that the unable  to  e x t r a c t a d d i t i o n a l c r i t i c a l components o f i n t e l l i g e n t performance because they were masked by t h e response  component. I n an attempt  72  to  study  strategy  planning  nonentrenched o r novel  and  strategy  execution  he  used  a  task.  The t a s k used was a v e r b a l a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g t a s k but t h e a n a l o g i e s d i f f e r e d from p r e v i o u s ones i n t h a t they had from one t o t h r e e analogy varied  from case  supplied  t o case.  answer  componential global  terms m i s s i n g and t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e m i s s i n g terms  options.  The m i s s i n g The  analogies  a n a l y s i s t o determine  planning  were  how much  and how much on l o c a l  r e f e r r e d t o a macrostrategy  terms were s e l e c t e d from analyzed  time  planning.  was  using  spent  Global  on  planning  a p p l i e d t o a s e t o f problems whereas  l o c a l planning r e f e r r e d t o a microstrategy applied t o a p a r t i c u l a r problem w i t h i n t h e s e t . G l o b a l p l a n n i n g l a t e n c i e s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e sameness o f t h e a n a l o g i e s i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e t and l o c a l planning Latency  l a t e n c i e s with  the d i f f i c u l t y  of the p a r t i c u l a r  item.  s c o r e s were c o r r e l a t e d with t h e composite o f two p e n c i l -  and-paper l e t t e r s e r i e s completion Results  showed  that  tasks.  a l l latency  scores  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s c o r e s on t h e pencil-and-paper  were  moderately  reasoning tasks i n  a d i r e c t i o n t h a t i n d i c a t e d s h o r t e r l a t e n c i e s were r e l a t e d t o h i g h e r reasoning  scores.  correlated longer  with  In c o n t r a s t ,  t h e same s c o r e s  l a t e n c i e s were r e l a t e d  planning  was o n l y  weakly  global  planning  i n a direction  t o higher  c o r r e l a t e d with  was  that indicated  reasoning  scores.  reasoning  p a t t e r n o f l a t e n c i e s showed t h a t b e t t e r reasoners spent more time on g l o b a l p l a n n i n g  and r e l a t i v e l y  less  moderately  Local  s c o r e s . The relatively  time on l o c a l  73 planning.  Finally  the  regression  constant  continued  to  be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o r e a s o n i n g s c o r e s , hence a l l the i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a n c e was  not  e x t r a c t e d by  (1981)  the  complexity  commented  introduced  that  greater  complexity  into  t h i s method. of  the  the  Sternberg  task  constant  probably  so  that  the  s o l u t i o n of one problem i n t r o d u c e d o t h e r s .  Sternberg's T r i a r c h Theory of I n t e l l i g e n c e  Sternberg triarch  theory  (1985) expanded h i s theory of i n t e l l i g e n c e of  componential,  s u b t h e o r i e s . The componential to  the  kinds  internal of  world  components:  experiential,  and  into a  contextual  subtheory which r e l a t e s i n t e l l i g e n c e  of the  individual,  executive,  specifies  performance,  three  and  basic  knowledge-  a c q u i s i t i o n components. Kolligian  and  Sternberg  (1987)  defined  metacomponents  "higher o r d e r e x e c u t i v e processes t h a t are used t o p l a n ,  monitor,  and e v a l u a t e one's t a s k performance" (p.9). S t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n one of the main metacomponents (Sternberg, 1985,  was  1986). S t r a t e g i e s  were r e f e r r e d t o as o r g a n i z e d c o l l e c t i o n s of component .... t h a t can be manipulated  as  processes  t o enhance performance on a s p e c i f i c  t a s k or s e t of r e l a t e d t a s k s " ( K o l l i g i a n & Sternberg, 1987,  p. 11).  Performance components c a r r y out the o r d e r s and d i r e c t i o n s of the e x e c u t i v e components i n s o l v i n g Knowledge-acquisition  a problem or completing  components  are  used  in  a task.  learning  new  74 information. selectively structure,  They  selectively  assimilate and  and  encode  relevant  o r g a n i z e i t t o form  selectively  compare  the  new  information,  a new  with  cognitive  old  cognitive  structures. The  experiential  subtheory  concerns  the  application  of  components w i t h i n the framework of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s e x p e r i e n c e of the world, the e x t e n t t o which automatic, and  the way  coped w i t h . The  i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g has become  i n which  new  stimuli  c o n t e x t u a l subtheory, which  and  i n f o r m a t i o n are  relates  intelligence  t o the e x t e r n a l world o f the i n d i v i d u a l , concerns the way components are a p p l i e d shaping environments, The  triarch  (Sternberg Spear,  &  1985),  and s e l e c t i n g new  theory  Davidson, and  to experiences i n adapting  of  learning  mental  disabilities  environments,  environments.  intelligence  1983),  i n which  encompasses  retardation  giftedness  (Sternberg &  (Kolligian  & Sternberg,  1987). With emphasis on the componential subtheory, K o l l i g i a n Sternberg  (1987) o u t l i n e d  each  subtheory and  e x p l a i n e d the  between the subtheory and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s .  and link  The main p o i n t s  of K o l l i g i a n and Sternberg's t h e o r i z i n g are p r e s e n t e d as f o l l o w s . The  i d e a o f a c o m p o n e n t i a l - d e f i c i t was  learning-disabled  children  experience  areas such as r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g ,  used  learning  to explain  why  difficulties  in  and mathematics.  The  knowledge  a c q u i s i t i o n components i n a s p e c i f i c domain were t h e o r i z e d t o be the main s u s p e c t s o f a componential d e f i c i t . These were l i n k e d t o a poor knowledge base. S t e r n b e r g and Suben (1986) had suggested the  75 p o s s i b i l i t y of a feedback loop i n which a r i c h knowledge base c o u l d l e a d t o e f f i c i e n t use of k n o w l e d g e - a c q u i s i t i o n  components which i n  t u r n c o u l d l e a d t o a more e n r i c h e d knowledge base. K o l l i g i a n  and  Sternberg  and  suggested  inefficient  that  component  an  inadequate  processing  leads  knowledge to  a  base  more  inadequate  knowledge base. I n e f f i c i e n t c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t stemmed from inflexibility  i n c o g n i t i v e s t y l e were a l s o thought t o c o n t r i b u t e  t o poor knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n . Learning  disabled  c h i l d r e n are,  by  definition,  of  normal  i n t e l l i g e n c e . For t h i s reason, K o l l i g i a n and S t e r n b e r g were of the opinion  that  the  metacomponents overall indirect  as  deficits these  intellectual link  could  are  not  global  functioning.  between  occur  i n the  i n nature However,  metacomponential  executive  and  would  they  affect  suggested  deficits  and  d i s a b i l i t i e s through working memory. The i m p l i c a t i o n of  or  an  learning short-term  memory i n r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s has been d i s c u s s e d i n the f i r s t p a r t of  this  chapter.  intermediate (Swanson,  Working  storage  1982)  memory  location  Therefore,  for  componential p r o c e s s i n g ,  executed  or  information  is  been  identified  metacomponential  inefficient  deficient  some  has  storage  as  information  may  lead  so t h a t components are neglected.  "In  this  s p e c i f i c d e f i c i e n t o p e r a t i o n s " ( K o l l i g i a n & Sternberg, 1987, relationship  between  l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s was  the  experiential  to  poorly sense,  metacomponents a l l o w the lower order components t o continue  The  an  their p.10).  subtheory  e x p l a i n e d i n terms of a u t o m a t i c i t y  and and  76 m o t i v a t i o n . I t was  thought t h a t l a c k of a u t o m a t i c i t y i n p r o c e s s i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n through reduced range of experience would not a l l o w f o r e f f i c i e n c y i n d e a l i n g w i t h a novel s i t u a t i o n . T h i s corresponds t o the  LaBerge  processing novel  and  Samuel  i n reading.  stimuli  theory  Motivation  of  automatic  difficulties  information  and  aversion  i n a s p e c i f i c domain were l i n k e d t o 1)  functioning  of  lower  strategies,  3)  an  automatization The  (1974)  order  components,  inadequate  2)  knowledge  inefficient  deficient  base,  to  and  cognitive  4)  specific  failure.  contextual  subtheory  was  not  regarded  as  a  primary  determinant of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . However, because i t i s w i t h i n the  school  environment  identified, determined select  and by  aspects  that  evaluated,  the of  learning d i s a b i l i t i e s the  severity  individual's ability their  environment.  to  the  adapt  defined,  disorder  to,  Kolligian  suggested t h a t r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n who t h e i r environment may  of  are  and  shape,  is and  Sternberg  are l e s s a b l e t o shape  be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o having  t h e i r bottom-  up d e f i c i t s develop i n t o l a t e r top-down d e f i c i t s . It  should  be  noted  t h a t many of  Kolligian  and  Sternberg's  t h e o r e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s have not been t e s t e d e m p i r i c a l l y . However, the  authors  suggested  investigation i s required.  several  areas  in  which  empirical  77 Summary of Componential A n a l y s i s : Theory and  Componential d i f f e r e n t i a l and behaviour.  analysis  the  strengths  c o g n i t i v e approaches t o the study of  I t has  reasoning  combines  Research  tasks;  been  used  extensively  with  in particular, analogical  of  the  intelligent  various  forms  reasoning.  of  Sternberg  (1977) t h e o r i z e d a group of component p r o c e s s e s t h a t c o u l d be used i n a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g , an and  a d d i t i v e r u l e f o r t h e i r combination,  a s e t of models t o r e p r e s e n t  t h e i r mode of e x e c u t i o n .  a b l e t o support h i s t h e o r y e m p i r i c a l l y To  investigate  the  development  and  Rifkin  (Sternberg,  of  analogical  children,  Sternberg  analogies  w i t h s e p a r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s , presented v i a  varied  booklets.  analogy, c h i l d r e n used the and  t h i s use  show t h a t ,  became more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h age.  a b i l i t y l e v e l s . Her  average and  to  a  reasoning  series  analogies  of  picture  f o r t h i s type  Wilson  (1980) used  w i t h c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t  p r e f e r r e d an exhaustive mode of p r o c e s s i n g .  The the  of use  used the  i n c r e a s e d w i t h l e v e l of  term "schematic" was  s e p a r a b l e nature of  using  of  adults  ability  Children  of  same s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g  model as the c h i l d r e n i n the Sternberg and R i f k i n (197 9) study consistency  in  systematically  study i n d i c a t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n w i t h low  above average a b i l i t y  was  1978).  same s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g model as  the same s e p a r a b l e - a t t r i b u t e  marginally  (1979) used  They were able  1977;  He  and  ability.  a p p l i e d t o these a n a l o g i e s  t h e i r a t t r i b u t e s made s o l u t i o n  s e v e r a l s t r a t e g i e s . However, i n d i v i d u a l s u s u a l l y  because possible  indicated  78 a  spontaneous  preference  s o l v i n g these a n a l o g i e s .  for a  Sternberg and Ketron  show t h a t t h i s p r e f e r e n c e to  train  university  self-terminating  was so s t r o n g  students  to  strategy  when  (1982) were a b l e t o  t h a t i t was not p o s s i b l e  solve  them  using  any  other  s t r a t e g y . Moreover, i n d i v i d u a l s who had been t r a i n e d t o use another s t r a t e g y , thought they were u s i n g t h a t s t r a t e g y when i n f a c t they were u s i n g t h e s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g one. S t e r n b e r g (1985) expanded h i s componential theory i n t o a t h r e e level  " T r i a r c h Theory o f I n t e l l i g e n c e " . K o l l i g i a n  (1987) used t h i s theory t o e x p l a i n t h e d i s c r e p a n c y and  and Sternberg between a b i l i t y  academic performance e x h i b i t e d by l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n .  Such c h i l d r e n were t h e o r i z e d t o have a c o m p o n e n t i a l - d e f i c i t  mainly  i n s p e c i f i c domains o f knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n t h a t a r e accompanied by  problems  motivational was  of  difficulties.  interpreted  environment)  automaticity  i n terms  i n which  evidence was g i v e n  in  information  processing  The s e v e r i t y o f a l e a r n i n g of  the contextual  t h e student  i s placed.  t o support t h i s theory  r e s e a r c h were i d e n t i f i e d by t h e authors.  disability  setting Little  and  (school empirical  although areas needing  79 CHAPTER I I I : PURPOSE OF THE  In  the  previous  chapter  several  STUDY  unresolved  problems  were  r e v e a l e d . The f i r s t problem concerns the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n i n terms of the s e v e r i t y of the d i s o r d e r , l e v e l o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , and the other e x c l u s i o n a r y c r i t e r i a c o n t a i n e d i n the World F e d e r a t i o n of Neurology d e f i n i t i o n of d y s l e x i a 1968). Although  s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s c o n s i d e r t h a t the  (Waites,  population  of poor readers i s made up of a l a r g e group of g a r d e n - v a r i e t y poor readers  (Stanovich,  d i s a b l e d readers,  1988)  level  of  s m a l l e r group  that  disability,  where  those  of more s e v e r e l y  t o suggest  forms a continuum and  subpopulations;and reading  a  t h e r e i s evidence  of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s distinct  and  who  t h a t the s e v e r i t y i s not  made up  c h i l d r e n have f i t the  of  a  similar  World  Council  d e f i n i t i o n of d y s l e x i a cannot be d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the symptoms they e x h i b i t from those who The readers  majority chosen  of  from  do  not.  s t u d i e s have examined clinical  or  samples  school-diagnosed  of d i s a b l e d  sample  pools.  These sample p o o l s are s i m i l a r i n t h a t both have been diagnosed psychoeducational  assessment. The sample used i n t h i s study d i d not  come from a c l i n i c a l  population;  rather  i t was  s c h o o l based p o p u l a t i o n of students. T h i s was limiting  the  sample t o what Benton  s e l e c t e d from  a  an attempt t o a v o i d  (1978) t h e o r i z e d might be  a t y p i c a l one with p e c u l i a r problems of i t s own. i t may  by  In h i s words,  be d e s i r a b l e , g i v e n our p r e s e n t s t a t e of ignorance,  an "...  to cast  80 a  wide net  and  study  children  with  of  deficits  i n c l u d i n g those whose c l i n i c a l p i c t u r e s do not meet s t r i c t  criteria  of s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y " no attempt was  a wide v a r i e t y  (Benton,  1978,  made t o exclude c h i l d r e n who  p. 460).  Therefore,  might be d e s c r i b e d as  c u l t u r a l l y d e p r i v e d and the i n t e l l e c t u a l c r i t e r i a were s e t somewhat lower  than  t h a t advocated  Spear & Sternberg,  by  some r e s e a r c h e r s  (e.g.,  Vellutino,  1987).  The second problem concerns subtyping and the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and  confusion  subtypes  identified  production variables  created  of  by  by  attempts different  subtypes  appears  to  t h a t produce them than  to  compare  reading-disabled  methods  (Ellis,  be  dependent  more  they  are  on  the  1985).  The  upon  nature  the  of  the  sample or the c l u s t e r i n g method. C l e a r l y s u b t y p i n g r e s e a r c h needs a new methodology t o b r i n g some order t o the chaos t h a t e x i s t s What  is  needed  is  a  methodology  that  groups  now.  reading-disabled  students a c c o r d i n g t o a h i g h e r l e v e l of mental p r o c e s s i n g which i s l e s s dependent upon the v a r i a b l e s used and more dependent upon the mental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each i n d i v i d u a l i n the sample. Up t o the p r e s e n t , t h i s has  not been achieved because s t u d i e s have  focused  on i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . The  purpose of t h i s  study was  t o address  these  combining an  i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g approach w i t h  methodology.  This  subtyping  using  was  reading  to  be  and  achieved related  through  measures  f a m i l i a r t o s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l . But the study was  a two  that  problems  by  differential methods are  of  already  designed t o go  81 f u r t h e r . I t was the  way  designed t o examine, through componential a n a l y s i s ,  i n which  analogical  reading-disabled  reasoning  componential  task.  analysis  are  and  The  that  normal  advantages  i t allows  i d e n t i f y the mental p r o c e s s e s and  readers  solved  associated  the  an  with  theorist;  1)  to  s t r a t e g i e s used i n the task,  2)  t o c a l c u l a t e component s c o r e s and i n d i c a t e the amount of time spent executing between  each the  component,  solution  correlational  as  scores  analysis  r e s u l t s do  not  and  explore  external  (1977) t h e o r i z e d  processes  for  analogical  p r o c e d u r a l and  can  be  individual's  a r e l a t i v e l y small reasoning  and  s t r a t e g y use,  regression  scores,  with  which  external  between components and is  important  componential a n a l y s i s  at  through  the  individual the  other in  into  to  four  p r e f e r r e d model, which  for  inspecting  goodness  individual  variables  them  i s i d e n t i f i e d by  equations  indicate  number of component  combined  weaknesses, are c a l c u l a t e d from the r e g r e s s i o n  It  relationship  variables  c a r r i e d out  t h r e e s t r a t e g i c models. The  i n d i c a t e s component and  correlated  the  or the model chosen by o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s .  Sternberg  Component  to  depend upon i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s ,  data from many s u b j e c t s ,  each  3)  analysis.  Componential level  and  of f i t .  strengths  e q u a t i o n and  establish  can  and be  relationships  tasks.  selecting  an  with a s p e c i f i c  instrument group of  to  be  children  used  in  that i t  has been used e m p i r i c a l l y f o r t h a t purpose, c o n s i s t s of t a s k s t h a t reading-disabled  c h i l d r e n can perform, and has t h e o r i z e d  cognitive  82 processes  and s t r a t e g i e s t h a t have some r e l a t i o n s h i p t o r e a d i n g .  Two k i n d s  of p i c t u r e analogies  (1979) t o determine children.  were used by S t e r n b e r g  t h e development  E i t h e r would  have  been  & Rifkin  of a n a l o g i c a l reasoning i n  useful  with  reading-disabled  c h i l d r e n because r e a d i n g was not r e q u i r e d . However, t h e Schematic Picture  Analogies  associated with  were  chosen  because  the t h e o r e t i c a l  them were s t r a t e g i c and they  c h i l d r e n a t v a r i o u s developmental  (Sternberg  models  had been used & Rifkin,  with  1979) and  a b i l i t y l e v e l s (Wilson, 1980), a l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s t o be made when a p p l y i n g t h e t a s k t o other p o p u l a t i o n s . In a d i s c u s s i o n o f human reasoning, Sternberg a  task  as a  comparison,  reasoning  task  or selective  i f selective  combination  were  (1986) d e f i n e d  encoding,  selective  involved.  Inductive  r e a s o n i n g such as a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g which i d e n t i f i e s a g e n e r a l solution  from  a specific  encoding  and s e l e c t i v e  example,  inference.  relies  heavily  Deductive  on  reasoning  selective such  as  c a t e g o r i c a l s y l l o g i s m which i d e n t i f i e s a s p e c i f i c s o l u t i o n from a g e n e r a l example r e l i e s on s e l e c t i v e  combination.  Reading r e l i e s on v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f form and d e t a i l which are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and h e l d i n working memory. The top-down o r concept and  Smith  d r i v e n t h e o r i e s o f Goodman (19 68)  (1971) view r e a d i n g as a problem s o l v i n g t a s k i n which  the reader processes  o n l y as much v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n as necessary  t o o b t a i n meaning. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t s e l e c t i v e encoding  can be  83 equated w i t h t h e term redundancy which was c o i n e d by Smith (1971). The  information  selectively then  obtained  through  compared w i t h  selectively  t h e process  o f redundancy i s  information already  i n t h e system and  combined  or  assimilated  to  produce  new  information. The degree o f d i f f i c u l t y o f a r e a s o n i n g t a s k i s determined by a  series  o f mediators  described  by  Sternberg  i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e t h a t i n c r e a s e s o r decreases  (198 6)  as "any  the a v a i l a b i l i t y  or a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n f e r e n t i a l r u l e s f o r use i n a p a r t i c u l a r problem" (p. 290). Mediators were t h e o r i z e d t o be such i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s as p r i o r knowledge o f t h e type o f problem and how i t i s s o l v e d , working memory c a p a c i t y , and t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o represent  material  i n a specific  domain  (e.g.,  linguistic,  or  s p a t i a l ) . Mediators used i n the r e a d i n g process i n c l u d e f a m i l i a r i t y with  t h e content  grammatical extract capacity  and  format  of  and s y n t a c t i c r u l e s .  the text These  and  enable  knowledge  of  t h e readers  to  i n f o r m a t i o n a c c u r a t e l y . The i n f l u e n c e o f working memory and l i n g u i s t i c  ability  have been  implicated i n reading  e f f i c i e n c y as have s e l e c t i o n and use o f a p p r o p r i a t e  metacognitive  strategies. Although  schematic  picture  i d e n t i f y t h e c o g n i t i v e processes elementary s c h o o l  analogies  have  been  to  and s t r a t e g i e s used by h i g h SES  children at different  age l e v e l s  (Sternberg &  R i f k i n , 1979) and elementary s c h o o l c h i l d r e n a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s Wilson  used  ability  (1980), no r e s e a r c h t o date has i n v o l v e d d i s a b l e d  84 readers  i n such  explore  the  nonclinical  a task.  The  existence  of  contribution reading  of t h i s  disability  study was  subtypes  sample and compare them w i t h subtypes  to  in  identified  a by  p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . The use of componential a n a l y s i s added a f u r t h e r dimension  t o the knowledge o f r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s  identification  of c o g n i t i v e  p r o c e s s e s and  through  strategies  used  the in a  problem s o l v i n g t a s k and the f o r m a t i o n o f groups based on process and s t r a t e g y use. In a d d i t i o n , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d i n g and a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g was reading  disability  reasoning reading  subtype  subgroup  and  variables  study was  unique  interindividual  e s t a b l i s h e d by comparing membership i n a  by  analysis  membership  correlating  f o r each i n that  with  in  solution  analogical  an  scores with  r e a s o n i n g subgroup.  i t allowed i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l of  the  analogical  skills  of  the This  as w e l l  as  reading-disabled  children. T h i s study i s e s s e n t i a l l y disabled used  an e x p l o r a t o r y one  r e a d e r s are concerned because  are  different  research.  In  from  addition,  those  most  as f a r as the  the sample and often  componential  used  analysis  variables  i n subtyping of  analogical  r e a s o n i n g data has not been used w i t h a r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d However,  componential  average achievement components  and  analysis  has  been  used  with  sample.  s t u d e n t s of  l e v e l s making i t p o s s i b l e t o h y p o t h e s i z e the  strategies  used  by  the  s o l v i n g the schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s .  normal  reader  group  in  85 Research Questions and Hypotheses  Question 1  W i l l the Boder T e s t of R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g P a t t e r n s r e v e a l  the  same subtypes as those r e p o r t e d by Boder? The school-based sample used  i n t h i s study may  not resemble  the c l i n i c a l samples used  Boder (1973) and r e p o r t e d i n Boder and J a r r i c o range  (1982). The  broader  of t h i s r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d sample suggests t h a t s p e c i f i c  nonspecific reading d i s a b i l i t y  subtypes w i l l  be  found.  by  and  I t i s not  expected t h a t the u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d subtype w i l l emerge as the grade 5 s t u d e n t s used  i n t h i s study are approximately t e n y e a r s of  age  and the u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d subtype i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o l d e r s t u d e n t s .  Question 2  W i l l i t be p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the normal reader sample  and  the  reading-disabled  sample  c l u s t e r i n g technique w i t h r e a d i n g and  using  a  statistical  r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s and  will  the d i s a b l e d readers form subtypes? C l u s t e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s have been used  successfully  readers  to  distinguish  (Doehring e t a l . , 1981;  between  normal  and  disabled  Petruskas & Rourke, 1979).  86 Question 3  Will  t h e r e be  any  u s i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l the  Boder  Test  identified spelling  her  of  correspondence  between subtypes  c l u s t e r i n g method and Reading-Spelling  subtypes  using  measures, v a l i d a t i o n  one  those  Patterns?  measure  of  s t u d i e s suggested  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d  Question  (encoding,  a l l subjects  Although reading  using Boder  and  two  f u r t h e r subtype variables.  in  the  study  use  the  five  components  i n f e r e n c e , mapping, a p p l i c a t i o n and response) t o s o l v e  schematic  subjects  differ  picture from  components? P r e v i o u s 1980)  obtained  4  Will  the  obtained  analogies the  normal  studies  or  will  readers  (Sternberg  have shown t h a t o n l y encoding,  the in  reading-disabled their  & Rifkin,  choice  1979;  of  Wilson,  inference, application  and  response components were used i n s o l v i n g these a n a l o g i e s . Mapping, as an o p t i o n a l component, was  Hypothesis  not used.  4.1  Normal readers w i l l use encoding,  inference, application,  and  response components i n the s o l u t i o n of schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s .  87  Question 5  Will  the  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students  and  the  normal  readers  d i f f e r i n the e x t e n t t o which the l i n e a r combination r u l e for  their  Evidence SES  performance  in  schematic  picture  analogy  accounts  solutions?  from a p r e v i o u s study w i t h u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s and  elementary  school c h i l d r e n  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979)  high  showed  t h a t a l l s u b j e c t s used the a d d i t i v e combination r u l e and processed the components i n an a n a l y t i c f a s h i o n . The evidence from study  (1980) supported use of the l i n e a r combination  the h i g h and average a b i l i t y  Hypothesis  r u l e o n l y by  groups.  5.1  Normal r e a d e r s w i l l solution  Wilson's  of  the  picture  use  the  linear  analogies  and  combination  rule  process  an  in  i n the  analytic  fashion.  Question 6  Will  the  r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students  and  the  normal  d i f f e r i n the s t r a t e g i c model t h a t they use? S t e r n b e r g S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n separable a t t r i b u t e s ,  readers  (1977) and  (1980) found t h a t f o r p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s with students process i n s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode.  88 Wilson(1980) preferred  found  the  that  average  self-terminating  a b i l i t y group m a r g i n a l l y  Hypothesis  the  mode  p r e f e r r e d am  and of  high  ability  execution  but  groups the  low  e x h a u s t i v e mode.  6.1  Normal r e a d e r s w i l l show p r e f e r e n c e f o r a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode i n s o l v i n g schematic p i c t u r e  analogies.  Question 7  W i l l i t be p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y s e v e r a l subgroups of d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s u s i n g componential a n a l y s i s ? Evidence has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t reading-disabled  students  do  not  form  a  homogeneous  T h e r e f o r e i t seems reasonable t o suppose t h a t not this  group w i l l  process  i n the  same f a s h i o n  or  group.  a l l members of use  the  linear  combination r u l e c o n s i s t e n t l y . In a d d i t i o n , a t the component l e v e l d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s may  p r o c e s s more s l o w l y  and make more e r r o r s .  Question 8  Will  a relationship exist  reading d i s a b i l i t y  between membership i n one  of  the  subtypes and the model p r e f e r e n c e i n d i c a t e d f o r  s o l v i n g the schematic p i c t u r e  analogies?  89  Question 9  Will  the  subgroups  of  reading  and  average  time  Sternberg's between possible  solution disabled  related taken (1977)  solution  s c o r e s of a group of normal readers  correlate  variables? by  a  and  significantly  solution  student  research  scores  A  to  indicated ability  readers  score  solve  a  with  the  indicates  the  single  significant  variables.  to hypothesize s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s  normal r e a d e r s . The r e s e a r c h w i t h d i s a b l e d  and  analogy.  correlations  Therefore  i t is  f o r the group of  readers i s exploratory  and no h y p o t h e s i s can be made f o r t h i s group.  Hypothesis  The  9.1  s o l u t i o n s c o r e s of the group of normal r e a d e r s w i l l have  significant  (p<0.01) p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h r e a d i n g and  scores  significant  and  accuracy s c o r e s .  negative  correlations  with  ability  error and  90 CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY  This  study  was d i v i d e d  into  two phases.  In Phase  1, two  s c r e e n i n g t e s t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n i n order t o i d e n t i f y and s e l e c t samples o f d i s a b l e d and normal r e a d e r s . In Phase 2 o f the study, t h e students i n each sample were i n d i v i d u a l l y administered analogy  reading  and r e a d i n g - r e l a t e d  t e s t was g i v e n t o students  procedures  used  i n each.  and a p i c t u r e  i n s m a l l groups. T h i s  d e s c r i b e s t h e two phases o f t h e study, and  tests  The  chapter  d e t a i l i n g t h e instruments chapter  concludes  with  a  d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f data f o r a n a l y s i s .  Phase 1  Target  Population  The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n comprised students e n r o l e d i n grade 5. These students attended p u b l i c elementary s c h o o l s i n an urban area of Northwestern O n t a r i o . F o r t h e purpose o f t h i s study,  disabled  readers were d e f i n e d as those students o f normal i n t e l l i g e n c e who s c o r e d a t o r below the 2 0th p e r c e n t i l e on the Comprehension Subtest of t h e S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t A.  P e r c e n t i l e ranks were obtained  (SDRT), Brown L e v e l , Form  from t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  o f the  s c o r e s o f these grade 5 students. Normal readers were d e f i n e d as students o f normal i n t e l l i g e n c e who scored a t o r above t h e 3 5th  91 p e r c e n t i l e on t h i s t e s t . The that  normal  readers.  readers  Normal  were  35th p e r c e n t i l e was clearly  intelligence  was  chosen t o ensure  distinguished  defined  by  a  from  disabled  Universal  Scaled  Score i n the range 80 t o 12 0 obtained  on the Nonverbal B a t t e r y of  the Canadian C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s T e s t  (CCAT), Form 1, L e v e l C.  CCAT  Universal  standardized,  Scaled  Score,  has a mean of 100  obtained  when  and a standard  the  The  test  d e v i a t i o n of  was 16.  Instruments Used  S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t  The  Stanford  Gardner, 1976)  Diagnostic  (SDRT)  Reading  i s a group-administered  Test  (Karlsen,  Madden,  m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e t e s t which  measures s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g s k i l l s . The Brown L e v e l , Form A was in  this  study  as  i t i s intended  designed  Vocabulary, The  three  sample  skills  in  four  Comprehension, Decoding, and  Vocabulary  Vocabulary. of  to  reading  components:  Rate.  component c o n s i s t s of  one  subtest,  Auditory  T h i s measures the a b i l i t y t o match a sentence t o  words w r i t t e n  i n the  test  low  s e l e c t e d because i t  booklet,  each  pronounced o r a l l y by the examiner. There are f o r t y  of  which  Comprehension component c o n s i s t s of one  one is  items i n t h i s  subtest. The  used  f o r grades 5 through 8 and  a c h i e v e r s i n the h i g h e r grades. T h i s t e s t was is  &  subtest that  92 i n c l u d e s two measures o f r e a d i n g comprehension. One corresponds t o f a c t u a l comprehension and t h e other t o i n f e r e n t i a l The  test  employs  t h e paragraph  format  i n which  comprehension. t h e student i s  r e q u i r e d t o read a paragraph and then answer w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s . Two Phonetic  subtests  make  Analysis,  up t h e Decoding  measures  component.  the a b i l i t y  t o make  The  first,  sound-symbol  a s s o c i a t i o n s . One group o r group o f l e t t e r s i s u n d e r l i n e d i n a word and  t h e student must s e l e c t ,  word  that  contains  distinguished  from  scores recorded  the  vowel  from a c h o i c e o f t h r e e , t h e p r i n t e d same  sound.  Consonant  sounds  are  sounds v i a t h e s c o r i n g key and t h e i r  separately.  The second Decoding s u b t e s t , S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s , measures t h e a b i l i t y t o use s y l l a b l e s , p r e f i x e s , r o o t words and b l e n d s . I t has two p a r t s . I n p a r t one, t h e student i n d i c a t e s where t h r e e - s y l l a b l e words should  be d i v i d e d i n t o  consist of four s y l l a b l e s ,  syllables.  In p a r t  two, t h e items  t h r e e o f which can be blended  t o make  a word. The student i s r e q u i r e d t o i n d i c a t e which s y l l a b l e does not f i t t h e word. The  last  skill  area,  Reading Rate, c o n s i s t s o f one s u b t e s t  which measures t h e a b i l i t y t o read m a t e r i a l o f a lower grade l e v e l , q u i c k l y and a c c u r a t e l y . T h i s s u b t e s t r e q u i r e s t h e student t o read a  sentence  choice  and choose a m i s s i n g  of three.  Students  purpose o f t h e t e s t  word o r group  are t o l d  before  i s t o see how f a s t  they  o f words begin  from a  that the  and a c c u r a t e l y they can  read. The t e s t y i e l d s two s e t s o f s c o r e s ; one i n d i c a t e s t h e t o t a l  93 number of correct Raw  responses made and  the  other  i n d i c a t e s the  number  of  responses. scores  are the number of c o r r e c t responses,  Reading Rate s u b t e s t , the number of items d i s t r i b u t i o n was  or,  completed. A  produced f o r the combined F a c t u a l and  s c o r e s of the Reading Comprehension s u b t e s t . The  i n the  frequency  Inferential  raw  s c o r e s were  converted t o p e r c e n t i l e rank and used t o s e l e c t samples of d i s a b l e d and normal r e a d e r s . In the manual, i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y was for  a l l subtests  Vocabulary was  at  grade  levels  5  to  9,  r e p o r t e d a t above .9 except  for  Auditory  a t grades 5 and 6. I n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y f o r t h i s s u b t e s t  r e p o r t e d t o be  v a l i d i t y was  .84  f o r grade 5 and  .88  f o r grade 6.  Criterion  e s t a b l i s h e d by c o r r e l a t i n g the s u b t e s t s w i t h those of  the S t a n f o r d Achievement T e s t and ranged from .39 t o  Canadian C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y T e s t  .98.  (CCAT)  The Canadian C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t y T e s t (Thorndike, Hagen, Lorge, & Wright, 1974) one  of  the  i s a group-administered  more  popular  tests  of  multiple-choice test  i t s kind  (Randhawa, Hunt, & Rawlyk, 1974). Although  in  i t was  use  in  and  Canada  standardized i n  Canada, the content, except f o r items t h a t c o n t a i n i m p e r i a l u n i t s , i s the same as the C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s T e s t  (CAT)  used i n s c h o o l s  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . These items have been r e p l a c e d w i t h " n e u t r a l "  94  r a t h e r than m e t r i c items because Canadian s c h o o l c h i l d r e n were not all  f a m i l i a r w i t h m e t r i c u n i t s when the t e s t was The  multilevel  edition  of  the  CCAT,  Form  standardized. 1,  consists  of  V e r b a l , Q u a n t i t a t i v e , and Nonverbal B a t t e r i e s designed f o r use with grades 3 t o 12.  A s e r i e s of graded items  are d i v i d e d i n t o e i g h t  s e p a r a t e but o v e r l a p p i n g l e v e l s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n a s i n g l e r e u s a b l e booklet.  L e v e l C was  Grade  students.  5  s e l e c t e d as the most s u i t a b l e f o r use Each  item  is  multiple-choice  r e c o r d e d on a separate hand-scorable  with  with  answers  sheet. The Nonverbal B a t t e r y  of the CCAT does not c o n t a i n any w r i t t e n v e r b a l m a t e r i a l , making it  s u i t a b l e f o r use with d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . I t was  chosen f o r t h i s  reason and as w e l l as f o r the f a c t t h a t i t was  normed on a Canadian  p o p u l a t i o n . The  Nonverbal B a t t e r y has  subtests:  Classification,  2)  Figure Analogies,  three and  3)  1)  Figure  Figure Synthesis.  In  these t e s t s the student i s r e q u i r e d t o : 1) f i n d a drawing t h a t f i t s a c l a s s of drawings, 2) s o l v e f i g u r e a n a l o g i e s i n the form A i s t o B as C i s t o D (A:B::C:D), and  3) s e l e c t f i g u r e s t h a t can be made  from a group of g i v e n p a r t s . The  raw  s c o r e i s the number of c o r r e c t responses.  p r o v i d e d f o r c o n v e r t i n g raw rank,  and  stanines  based  i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study was mean of 100,  a standard  s c o r e s t o standard upon  Tables  are  scores, p e r c e n t i l e  c h r o n o l o g i c a l age.  The  score  of  the U n i v e r s a l S c a l e d Score which has a  d e v i a t i o n of 16,  and  i s standardized  by  age. The  CCAT was  normed on approximately  27,000 E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g  95 Canadian s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n grades 3 t o 9. As t h e o b t a i n e d sample d i d not match the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f students throughout the p r o v i n c e s and  territories,  sample  responses  were  weighted  to  remove  inequities. C o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was i n f e r r e d from f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  o f data  c o l l e c t e d from 300 students who had a l s o taken t h e Canadian LorgeThorndike  Intelligence  Test  (CLTIT),  an e a r l i e r  version  of the  CCAT. Three d i s t i n c t f a c t o r s were r e p o r t e d . Randhawa e t a l . (1974) p o i n t e d out t h a t the f a c t o r s were u n r o t a t e d and t h e r e f o r e to  interpret.  They undertook t o r o t a t e  them u s i n g  difficult  Varimax. The  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e a g e n e r a l f a c t o r and a nonverbal f a c t o r common t o both t e s t s . F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t  using  the  WISC (Randhawa e t a l . , 1974) r e v e a l e d  the  f a c t o r s loaded on both t e s t s but a f o u r t h f a c t o r loaded on t h e  CCAT alone. The f a c t o r s  four  validity  f a c t o r s . Three of  common t o both t e s t s were i d e n t i f i e d as  V e r b a l , Nonverbal, and Reasoning f a c t o r s . The emergence o f a common nonverbal  f a c t o r g i v e s support t o t h e use o f t h e CCAT Nonverbal  Battery rather the  than t h e WISC as t h i s would prove i m p r a c t i c a l  l a r g e numbers o f s u b j e c t s t e s t e d  with  i n t h e p r e s e n t study.  Procedure  Administration standardization  o f t h e SDRT  was  conducted  as  part  of a  program t o o b t a i n l o c a l norms f o r the t e s t . Schools  s e l e c t e d t o take p a r t i n t h e study had an enrolment o f a t l e a s t 15  96 grade 5 students or, where French Immersion was an o p t i o n , a t l e a s t 15 met  students  r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n i n E n g l i s h . Thirty-two  this criteria.  proportion  schools  They had a t o t a l o f 966 grade 5 students  representative  o f urban  and r u r a l  sections  p o p u l a t i o n . The students came from a wide socio-economic  in a  o f the  range and  a v a r i e t y o f e t h n i c backgrounds. In accordance with  School  Board p o l i c y ,  letters  requesting  p e r m i s s i o n f o r students t o take p a r t i n the s c r e e n i n g phase o f the study were sent by i n d i v i d u a l p r i n c i p a l s t o parent  o r guardians.  P e r m i s s i o n was o b t a i n e d f o r 801 students t o take p a r t . F o r t y - f i v e o f these students d i d not complete the SDRT r e a d i n g  comprehension  s u b t e s t , r e d u c i n g t h e sample p o o l t o 757. The S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t (SDRT) and t h e Nonverbal Battery  o f t h e Canadian  administered  Cognitive  Abilities  i n t h r e e s e s s i o n s o f approximately  each. T e s t i n g was arranged  Test  (CCAT)  were  an hour and a h a l f  t o s u i t each c l a s s t i m e t a b l e and where  p o s s i b l e was conducted on t h r e e s u c c e s s i v e s c h o o l days o r w i t h i n one s c h o o l week. The SDRT Subtests 1 and 2 were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n the f i r s t s e s s i o n , f o l l o w e d by Subtests 3, 4, and 5 i n t h e second, and the  CCAT Nonverbal  Battery  i n the t h i r d .  Adminstration  o f each  s u b t e s t was f o l l o w e d by a f i v e t o t e n minute break. The  tests  were  administered  by  the p r i n c i p a l  a s s i s t e d by a team o f graduate students Master's  program  in Clinical  Psychology  researcher  who were e n r o l e d at a local  T e s t i n g u s u a l l y took p l a c e i n t h e student's  i n the  university.  own grade 5 classroom  97 with  one  p r o c t o r s u p e r v i s i n g up  to  fifteen  students.  Classroom  t e a c h e r s were not i n v o l v e d i n the t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n or r e q u i r e d to be p r e s e n t d u r i n g t e s t i n g although some e l e c t e d t o remain i n the classroom  and  worked q u i e t l y  i n the background. Where p o s s i b l e ,  l a r g e groups of students were d i v i d e d i n t o s m a l l e r groups t o reduce the  likelihood  occurred  of  behaviour  d u r i n g breaks  problems. A  few  between s u b t e s t s but  behaviour d i d not  problems  disrupt  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the t e s t s .  Data P r e p a r a t i o n  The p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r and the graduate students the  tests  they  unconnected protocols  administered.  with for  the  An  additional  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  scoring  accuracy.  All  the CCAT  hand-scored  person tests and  who  was  checked SDRT  all  Reading  Comprehension p r o t o c o l s were r e s c o r e d by the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r . The  data  were  analyzed  S o c i a l Sciences - Version X User's Guide,  1986). Separate  using  Statistical  Package  for  (SPSS ) subprogram Frequencies  the  (SPSS  frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s and summary  were o b t a i n e d f o r each SDRT s u b t e s t but o n l y the d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the  Reading  Comprehension  subtest  was  used  in  this  study.  S t a t i s t i c s are presented i n T a b l e 6. The SDRT r e a d i n g comprehension s u b t e s t c o n t a i n e d equal numbers of f a c t u a l and i n f e r e n t i a l Split-half reliability  items.  of the s u b t e s t , c o r r e c t e d f o r l e n g t h u s i n g  the Spearman-Brown formula, was  .96.  98 T a b l e 6. Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , age, nonverbal a b i l i t y , comprehension f o r grade 5 s t u d e n t s  Variable Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n Males Females Total Age ( i n months) Mean SD Range CCAT ( U n i v e r s a l Score) Mean SD Range Reading Comprehension Mean SD Range  and r e a d i n g  # of missing cases 395 406 801  0 0 0  128.4 7.6 109.0 - 158.0 98.1 16.9 50.0 - 13 8.0 (Raw Score)  37.8 13.5 3.0 -  0  50  45 60.0  99  Phase 2  S e l e c t i o n of Samples  One hundred and f i f t y - o n e students had a Reading Comprehension Score  a t or below the  twentieth p e r c e n t i l e  and  met  the  reading  c r i t e r i o n f o r membership i n Group D but f i f t y - e i g h t had CCAT scores below 80.  The  remaining  n i n e t y - t h r e e students who  met  both  these  c r i t e r i a f o r membership i n Group D were a l l asked t o take p a r t i n Phase  2.  students  Random  number t a b l e s were  from those who  met  used  the c r i t e r i a  to  select  twenty-five  f o r membership i n Group  N. P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n was for  student  Teachers,  participation  without  being  requested by the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r  i n Phase 2 of the  informed  study  (Appendix A).  as t o which group the  students  belonged, were asked t o complete a c h e c k l i s t (Appendix B) on b e h a l f of t h e i r s t u d e n t s . The c h e c k l i s t was who:  1) had  been educated  Grade 1,  2) had  problem,  4)  designed t o i d e n t i f y  i n a language o t h e r than E n g l i s h s i n c e  a h e a r i n g problem, 3) had  were  students  infrequent  attenders,  an u n c o r r e c t e d or  5)  had  visual  behavioural  problems. The f i r s t f o u r q u e s t i o n s were designed t o exclude students f o r whom the  answer was  "Yes".  The  fifth  question  was  included  to  p r o v i d e c o n f i r m a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n should a student's behaviour prove so d i s r u p t i v e a t some p o i n t i n the study t h a t t e s t i n g had t o be  100 discontinued.  This  examiners  avoid  to  information  was  prejudicing  to  be  withheld  t h e student/examiner  However, t h i s was a p r e c a u t i o n t h a t proved unnecessary the  students  Teachers reading were  were  identified  were a l s o asked level  based  as p o t e n t i a l  to give  their  observation  the  rapport. as none o f  behaviour  opinion  i n comparison w i t h t h e peer  upon  from  problems.  of a  student's  group. T h e i r o p i n i o n s  o f t h e student  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  j udgement. P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n t o take f u r t h e r p a r t i n t h e study was not g i v e n f o r 13 p o t e n t i a l members o f t h e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d group and three  students  were  identified  by  the teacher  checklist  as  i n e l i g i b l e t o take p a r t . P a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n was r e f u s e d f o r t h r e e p o t e n t i a l members o f t h e normal group and t e s t i n g was not completed f o r two o t h e r s b e f o r e t h e end o f the s c h o o l year. The t o t a l sample, therefore,  c o n s i s t e d o f 97 Grade  5 students,  o f whom  77 were  d i s a b l e d readers and 20 were normal r e a d e r s . The r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d group  (D) c o n t a i n e d  group  (N) c o n t a i n e d  41 males and 3 6 females. 7 males  and 13  females.  The normal Table  7  readers contains  d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s o f Group D and Group N f o r sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , age,  nonverbal  Teachers  a b i l i t y and SDRT Reading Comprehension s c o r e .  i d e n t i f i e d 62 out o f 77 students, o r 81 percent o f group  D as below-average readers compared t o t h e i r p e e r s ; t h e o t h e r s were regarded  as average.  T h i s i m p l i e d t h a t some t e a c h e r s had a lower  c r i t e r i o n f o r i d e n t i f y i n g below average readers than t h e d e f i n i t i o n used i n t h i s study. They a l s o i d e n t i f i e d 19 out o f 2 0 i n Group N  101 T a b l e 7. Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n , age, nonverbal a b i l i t y , and r e a d i n g comprehension f o r Group D and Group N  Variable Sex d i s t r i b u t i o n Males Females Total Age ( i n Months) Mean SD Range  Group D  41 36 77  Group N  7 13 20  129.0 7.6 116 - 156  126.6 6.7 111 - 140  CCAT ( U n i v e r s a l Score) Mean 92.0 SD 10.3 Range 80 - 117  104.3 11.7 80 - 119  Reading Comprehension (raw score) Mean 18.4 SD 3.8 Range 10 23  43.4 8.7 32 -  58  102 as average r e a d e r s ; the remaining  student was  i d e n t i f i e d as below  average.  Instruments Used  Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary  The  Revised  Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary  1981), designed i n two  Test -  T e s t - Revised  (Dunn & Dunn,  t o measure a s u b j e c t ' s r e c e p t i v e vocabulary,  forms, L and  M.  In t h i s  i n d i v i d u a l l y administered  study  Form L was  comes  used. I t i s an  t e s t t h a t can be g i v e n t o persons from  two-and-a-half t o f o r t y years of age. The t e s t c o n s i s t s of a s e r i e s of p l a t e s bound i n t o an e a s e l k i t f o r ease of p r e s e n t a t i o n . plate  i s divided i n t o four quarters  each q u a r t e r . The the  matching  appropriate consecutive  a picture displayed i n  examiner says a word and the s u b j e c t  picture. to  with  the  Different starting  subject's  age.  A  points  basal  of  all  the  raw  indicated  eight  correct  responses i s e s t a b l i s h e d and the t e s t i s d i s c o n t i n u e d  score  items  below  equivalents,  responses.  i s the t o t a l number of c o r r e c t responses p l u s the  basal  level  which  c o r r e c t . Tables are p r o v i d e d f o r c o n v e r t i n g raw score  identifies  are  when the s u b j e c t makes s i x e r r o r s i n e i g h t c o n s e c u t i v e The  Each  p e r c e n t i l e ranks  and  are  assumed  scores to  stanines,  based  to  be  standard on  age  i n t e r v a l s of s i x months. Standard s c o r e e q u i v a l e n t s w i t h a mean of 100  and  standard  d e v i a t i o n of 15 were used i n t h i s  study.  103 The  test  was  standardized  i n the  U.S.  on  a representative  sample of young persons aged two-and-a h a l f t o e i g h t e e n y e a r s . Rasch-Wright s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n procedure (Wright, 1977) requiring  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  only  one  form  of  was  The  adopted,  the  test  per  s u b j e c t . Forms L and M were g i v e n a l t e r n a t e l y . Three  kinds  of  reliability  reliability,  immediate  Reliability  coefficients  data  were  test-retest,  reported;  and  delayed  split-half  test-retest.  f o r Form L a t ages t e n t o twelve  ranged from .77 t o .86. The authors r e p o r t c o n s t r u c t and  years  criterion  v a l i d i t y of the u n r e v i s e d PPVT t o be h i g h and by i m p l i c a t i o n a l s o the  PPVT-R. No  c o n s t r u c t or c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d  validity  data  are  r e p o r t e d i n the manual f o r the r e v i s e d t e s t .  The  Boder T e s t of R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g  Patterns  The Boder T e s t of R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g P a t t e r n s (Boder & J a r r i c o , 1982)  i s an i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d t e s t designed t o d i s t i n g u i s h  disabled  readers  from  normal  readers  and  to  classify  them  into  subgroups a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r e a d i n g - s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s . The  test  c o n s i s t s of graded word l i s t s t h a t have equal numbers of  phonetic  and nonphonetic words. The word l i s t s are used i n both the r e a d i n g and  spelling The  tests.  examiner p r e s e n t s  the  student  with  the  notes whether the words are r e c o g n i z e d w i t h i n one  word  lists  second  and  (flash)  or w i t h i n t e n seconds (untimed) or not read a t a l l (not r e a d ) .  The  104 list  f o r which the student reads 50 p e r c e n t of the words on  flash  p r e s e n t a t i o n i n d i c a t e s the student's grade l e v e l . I n s t r u c t i o n s i n the manual a d v i s e t h a t the t e s t more  grade  nonphonetic While in  levels  to  give  should be  sufficient  words f o r the s p e l l i n g  c o n t i n u e d through unknown  two  phonetic  and  test.  the student works on paper and p e n c i l t a s k s  the manual, the examiner s e l e c t s a l i s t  suggested  of t e n known and  ten  unknown words f o r the s p e l l i n g t e s t each c o n t a i n i n g f i v e p h o n e t i c and  f i v e nonphonetic  words. The examiner p r e s e n t s each known word  i n i s o l a t i o n then s p e c i f i e s i t s meaning by u s i n g i t i n a sentence. Unknown words are presented i n i s o l a t i o n as the purpose i s t o see i f the student can w r i t e a good p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t of the word. In  s c o r i n g the s p e l l i n g t e s t , the known words are scored f o r  c o r r e c t n e s s o n l y ; whereas, the unknown words are s c o r e d f o r t h e i r phonetic  equivalence  t o the  d i c t a t e d words, which  i n c l u d e words  t h a t are c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d . G u i d e l i n e s are g i v e n i n the manual f o r i d e n t i f y i n g good p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t s (GFEs). The  Boder t e s t uses  a Reading Q u o t i e n t (RQ) t o d i s t i n g u i s h normal from d i s a b l e d readers and  t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between d i s a b l e d - r e a d e r subtypes.  its  s i m p l e s t form i s a r a t i o of r e a d i n g age t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l age.  Reading grade  age  i s calculated  equivalent  score.  by The  adding  s i x years  reading-spelling  t o the  The  in  student's  patterns  d i s t i n g u i s h the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s are summarized i n Table Boder based her c l a i m of h i g h r e l i a b i l i t y  RQ  that 8.  and v a l i d i t y on the  use of the t e s t w i t h more than 3,000 c h i l d r e n i n a v a r i e t y of  105 T a b l e 8. The subtypes o f Boder  Spelling Pattern  Typical Reading Quotient  Reader Type  Known v s Unknown Words  Normal  >50%  >50%  Dysphonetic*  >50%  <50%  70 - 85  Dyseidetic*  <50%  >50%  50 - 70  Mixed Group*  <50%  <50%  <67  Nonspecific  >50%  >50%  80 - 90  Undetermined  <50%  >50%  80 - 90  * S p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y  >100  106 clinical  s e t t i n g s . Using the t e s t p r o t o c o l s  retest r e l i a b i l i t y long-term  retest  was  established  for  four  by gender, two  components  of  l e v e l , a l l c o e f f i c i e n t s were between .96 term r e t e s t which was  .81.  statistic  which  the and  age  levels,  test. .99  test-  For  and  reading  except f o r  long-  R e l i a b i l i t y f o r c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d known  words ranged from .56 t o .84 square  of 54 c h i l d r e n ,  and  f o r GFEs from .72  indicated  subtype c l a s s i f i c a t i o n at f i r s t and  the  t o .89.  relationship  The  Chi-  between  second t e s t i n g was  the  significant  a t the p<.003 l e v e l . I n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y was measured u s i n g randomly s e l e c t e d t e s t protocols  of  46  children.  Split-half reliability  u s i n g odd/even items where p o s s i b l e , the  items  were  compared  c o e f f i c i e n t s , corrected flash  presentation,  with  otherwise the  the  last  f o r l e n g t h were .99,  reading  level,  was  first  half. .97,  unknown word  calculated half  of  Reliability  .82,  and  list  .92  and  for  GFEs,  r e s p e c t i v e l y . However, the r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .99 f o r f l a s h presentation  is  inappropriate  open  for  to  question  speeded  tests  as and  internal produces  consistency spuriously  is high  results. To  support her  claim  of v a l i d i t y  Boder demonstrated t h a t the  f o r the  t e s t and  subtypes,  subtypes were c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d  i n roughly the same p r o p o r t i o n s by a number of independent s t u d i e s . Support was  a l s o o f f e r e d from a v a r i e t y of s t u d i e s f o r the v a l i d i t y  of the subtypes. The  s t u d i e s employed such t e s t s as the WISC-R, the  WRAT, t e s t s of a u d i t o r y  and  v i s u a l memory and  other  psychological  107 tests.  The subtypes  performed For  were  distinguishable  on these t e s t s as expected  example  i n a memory  from  from t h e i r  f o r faces  test  each  o t h e r and  characteristics.  the d y s e i d e t i c  group  i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer f a c e s than t h e d y s p h o n e t i c s and i n a digit digits  span t e s t  t h e dysphonetics  recalled  i n sequence than, t h e d y s e i d e t i c s .  established  through  correlations  c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from  with  significantly  fewer  Construct v a l i d i t y t h e WRAT.  was  Correlation  .74 w i t h a group o f r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d boys  t o .95 f o r a mixed group o f normal and d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . The  s c o r i n g scheme f o r t h e t e s t  i s based  on t h e assumption  t h a t normal r e a d e r s s p e l l words i n t h e i r s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y w i t h an accuracy r a t e o f 7 0 p e r c e n t o r more. Boder p r e s e n t e d evidence t h a t normal r e a d e r s a t d i f f e r e n t grade l e v e l s had s c o r e s c o n s i s t e n t with this  assumption  thus  establishing  criterion-related  v a l i d i t y of  normal s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s .  D u r r e l l A n a l y s i s o f Reading  The  Durrell  Catterson,  Analysis  Difficulty  of  Reading  Difficulty  (Durrell  &  1980) i s a d i a g n o s t i c r e a d i n g t e s t t h a t c o n s i s t s o f a  s e r i e s o f r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g , memory and phonics s u b t e s t s . The t e s t i s designed t o be used  from preprimer t o grade 6 l e v e l . The t e s t  was s t a n d a r d i z e d on students i n f i v e s t a t e s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Reliability  o f t h e s u b t e s t s was r e p o r t e d as r a n g i n g  from  .63 t o  .97. C o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d by c o r r e l a t i n g t h e s u b t e s t s  108 w i t h t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n Reading T e s t s . C o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .36 t o .85. O r a l and S i l e n t Reading s u b t e s t s each c o n s i s t o f f o u r timed paragraphs  arranged  i n ascending  Reading, when a student allows  five  allows  the reading  students  seconds  fails  of d i f f i c u l t y .  In O r a l  t o pronounce a word, t h e examiner  t o elapse t o proceed  t o answer  order  before  supplying  a t a reasonable  t h e comprehension  t h e word.  This  pace and enables  questions  without  being  p e n a l i z e d because they c o u l d not read some o f t h e words. The  nature  of the S i l e n t  Reading  task  makes  timing  less  p r e c i s e . Timing ends when students i n d i c a t e t h a t they have f i n i s h e d r e a d i n g each paragraph.  I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r students t o skim q u i c k l y  over t h e passage, t o ponder unknown words a t g r e a t l e n g t h , o r t o reread  parts  determined  o f sentences.  Thus  the length  o f time  taken i s  by t h e student's s i l e n t r e a d i n g s t r a t e g y .  Paragraphs t o be read o r a l l y a r e accompanied by q u e s t i o n s t h a t measure l i t e r a l comprehension. The manual p r o v i d e s g u i d e l i n e s f o r s c o r i n g and g i v e s examples o f a c c e p t a b l e responses.  There a r e no  s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s accompanying t h e paragraphs t o be read but  instructions  are provided  for eliciting  unaided  silently  and aided  r e c a l l o f what was read. I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t s i l e n t and o r a l r e a d i n g paragraphs a t the grade 5 l e v e l Group  D  and  fail  c o u l d prove t o o d i f f i c u l t to  discriminate  among  f o r many members o f them.  In  contrast,  paragraphs t h a t were t o o easy c o u l d produce a low c e i l i n g  effect  109 and f a i l t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between readers a t the upper end of Group D and  those  i n Group N.  paragraphs 2A  For t h i s reason,  (grade 3), 2B  O r a l and  (grade 4), and  Silent  Reading  3 (grade 5) were used  w i t h both groups t o p r o v i d e a range t h a t was  n e i t h e r too easy  nor  too d i f f i c u l t but would d i s c r i m i n a t e among the r e a d e r s . The  Listening  Comprehension  subtest  consists  paragraphs t o be read by the examiner t o the student, literal  comprehension  children  may  answer  questions. poorly  The  on  of  f o l l o w e d by  manual c a u t i o n s  passages  that  graded  that older  are  too  easy;  t h e r e f o r e , grade 4 and grade 5 passages were chosen f o r t h i s study. The  intention  was  to provide  paragraphs  close to  e n r o l e d grade without making the t a s k too Oral first  was  Reading  y i e l d e d three  the t o t a l  passages.  The  partially  correct  time  second  the  students  1  difficulty of  scores.  The  ( i n seconds) t h a t i t took  t o read  the  indicated  answers  to  different  the  total  types  number  comprehension  answers were g i v e n a score of one  of  c o r r e c t or  questions.  point; p a r t i a l l y  Correct  c o r r e c t were  g i v e n a s c o r e of h a l f a p o i n t . The t h i r d s c o r e was the t o t a l number of o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s . These were scored somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y from i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the manual. Four types of e r r o r s were i d e n t i f i e d :  repetition,  s u b s t i t u t i o n , and a d d i t i o n . A f i f t h category was self-corrected  errors.  Whole-word  and  omission,  devised to record  part-word  errors  were  r e c o r d e d s e p a r a t e l y , g i v i n g a t o t a l of nine s c o r e s connected  with  110 o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s . Each e r r o r and s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r was g i v e n a s c o r e o f one. S i l e n t Reading y i e l d e d two s c o r e s . Again, total  time  ( i n seconds) t h a t i t took  t o read  t h e f i r s t was the t h e passages.  The  second was t h e t o t a l number o f r e c a l l e d f a c t s i n t h e s t o r i e s . The examiner was p e r m i t t e d  t o a i d students'  q u e s t i o n i n g but these responses  recall  through  indirect  were not s c o r e d .  L i s t e n i n g Comprehension y i e l d e d one s c o r e f o r t h e two s e l e c t e d passages.  C o r r e c t responses  t o comprehension q u e s t i o n s scored one  p o i n t and p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t responses  scored h a l f a p o i n t .  Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s  T h i s t e s t p r o v i d e s students w i t h a t a s k t h a t does not r e q u i r e any  r e a d i n g . The a n a l o g i e s  (Sternberg & R i f k i n ,  1979) a r e o f the  form A i s t o B as C i s t o D (A:B::C:D). Each term d e p i c t s a f i g u r e t h a t can v a r y i n f o u r s e p a r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s  (See F i g u r e 2, p.61):  hat c o l o u r (black, w h i t e ) , s u i t p a t t e r n ( s t r i p e d , d o t t e d ) , handgear (briefcase, umbrella), analogy  and footwear  (shoes, b o o t s ) . To s o l v e the  t h e l a s t term D i s chosen from one o f two o p t i o n s : D i o r  Sixteen  separate  analogies  are contained  i n one  booklet  (Appendix C ) . The b o o k l e t s a r e "homogeneous" which means t h a t the number o f a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s t h a t change from A t o B, A t o C, and Di t o D2 remain constant w i t h i n b o o k l e t s although no two a n a l o g i e s are  Ill identical. solve  an  T h i s ensures t h a t t h e amount o f p r o c e s s i n g analogy  remains  b o o k l e t s a r e arranged  the same  throughout  a  needed t o  booklet.  The  so t h a t the number o f a t t r i b u t e d i f f e r e n c e s  between A and B, A and C, and D i and D2, change from b o o k l e t t o booklet  and no  two  booklets  contain  d i f f e r e n c e s . The time allowed  identical  combinations  t o s o l v e one b o o k l e t  of  i ssixty-four  seconds and each s u b j e c t r e c e i v e s a t o t a l o f twenty-four  booklets.  The a n a l o g i e s a r e randomly ordered w i t h i n b o o k l e t s and the b o o k l e t s are randomly presented  t o a v o i d any order  Three s c o r e s are obtained  effect.  f o r each s u b j e c t on each b o o k l e t :  the number o f a n a l o g i e s s o l v e d c o r r e c t l y , t h e number o f a n a l o g i e s solved  incorrectly,  and t h e t o t a l  number o f a n a l o g i e s  completed.  Each b o o k l e t can have a maximum o f s i x t e e n and a minimum o f zero for  a l l three  latency  and  scores.  mean  These  error  scores  rate  a r e used  f o r each  t o c a l c u l a t e mean  booklet.  Mean  latency  r e p r e s e n t s t h e average amount o f time taken t o c o r r e c t l y s o l v e one analogy  (mean l a t e n c y c o r r e c t ) o r t h e average amount o f time taken  t o complete one analogy  (mean l a t e n c y t o t a l ) . Mean l a t e n c y scores  are c a l c u l a t e d by t a k i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s c o r e f o r a s u b j e c t on one of t h e b o o k l e t s allowed  and d i v i d i n g  i t into  64 - t h e number o f seconds  t o complete t h e b o o k l e t . Mean e r r o r r a t e i s obtained by  d i v i d i n g t h e number o f a n a l o g i e s s o l v e d i n c o r r e c t l y by t h e t o t a l number o f a n a l o g i e s completed. In t h e event  that a booklet  score  i s zero, i t i s a d j u s t e d t o equal one, making i t p o s s i b l e t o compute mean l a t e n c y s c o r e .  112 The mean l a t e n c y s c o r e s and e r r o r r a t e are t h e t h r e e dependent variables  and each s u b j e c t  Mean l a t e n c y total  correct  has 24 such s c o r e s f o r each v a r i a b l e .  i s C r i t e r i o n Variable  i s Criterion  Variable  2  1 (CV1), mean  (CV2) arid  mean  error  rate i s  C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e 3 (CV3). The independent o r p r e d i c t o r are  associated  inference, the  with  the  theoretical  components  latency  variables (encoding,  mapping, a p p l i c a t i o n ) . T h e i r v a l u e s a r e determined by  "objective"  distance  between analogy terms A and B, A and C,  and C t o Dtrue expressed i n terms o f t h e number o f a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s that  change from term t o term  and t h e s t r a t e g y  employed by t h e  student. When t h e e x h a u s t i v e mode i s used t h e s u b j e c t attribute  values  encoded  predictor  variable  score  f o r a given i s equal  pair  compares a l l t h e  of s t i m u l i  t o t h e number  changes between them. I f t h e s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g  and t h e  of attribute  mode i s used,  only  a subset o f p o s s i b l e comparisons i s made between a p a i r o f s t i m u l i . The  distance  between Dtrue  and D f a l s e terms p r o v i d e s a m u l t i p l i e r  t h a t i s used t o c a l c u l a t e t h e v a l u e s o f t h e p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e f o r self-terminating value  operations.  Exhaustive  encoding has a constant  o f 5, t h e number o f terms t o be encoded. The v a l u e s f o r  exhaustive inference, The  mapping, and a p p l i c a t i o n range from 1 t o 3.  m u l t i p l i e r used  terminating  to calculate  the value  mode i s o b t a i n e d from t h e e q u a t i o n : (N + 1)/(N) (N - h + 1) ,  f o r the s e l f -  113 where  N  i s t h e number  exhaustively  of  attributes  that  can be  processed  and h i s t h e number o f a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s o f Dtrue t h a t  are t h e same as Dfalseand ranges from 0 t o 3 (Sternberg & R i f k i n , 1979). S i n c e N i s always 4, t h e m u l t i p l i e r s i m p l i f i e s t o 5/(20 4h) . Thus  i t can be seen  predictor variables  that,  f o r each  can have two v a l u e s ,  analogy  b o o k l e t , the  one f o r e x h a u s t i v e mode  and one f o r s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode. These v a l u e s change from b o o k l e t t o b o o k l e t by f i x e d predetermined amounts. The  values f o r the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s  (1 t o 8 ) a r e l i s t e d i n  T a b l e 9. The odd-numbered v a r i a b l e s a r e e x h a u s t i v e and t h e evennumbered a r e s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g .  The mean v a l u e s o f these v a r i a b l e s  are l i s t e d a t t h e bottom o f t h e t a b l e . Sternberg could Models  be used 1 to 4  encoding  is  combinations  theorized t o solve  seven  analogies.  (procedural exhaustive. of  possible  regression  models  that  These a r e shown i n T a b l e 10.  models) have a mapping component and These  exhaustive  models  and  contain  a l l possible  self-terminating  inference,  a p p l i c a t i o n , and mapping components. Models 1 t o 4 a r e m o d i f i e d t o produce Models  IM, 2-3M,  and 4M by t h e removal  o f t h e mapping  component. The c o r r e c t analogy s o l u t i o n i s t h e one t h a t makes the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e C and D terms t h e same as t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e A and B terms. predictor  variable  application  For each b o o k l e t ,  associated  with  the value  the i n f e r e n c e  o f the  (A t o B) and  (C t o Dtrue)components i s t h e same f o r t h e same  114 T a b l e 9. P r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s f o r r e g r e s s i o n  Analogy I n f e r e n c e Booklet A - B 1 exh. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3  Mean  1. 67  Mapping A - C  Application C - Dt  Encoding D t = D f M u l t i p l i e r  2 St.  3 exh.  4 St.  5 exh.  6 St.  7 exh.  8 st.  9 (h)  10 5/(20 -4h)  .63 .63 .63 1.25 1.25 1.88 .42 .42 .42 .83 .83 1.25 .31 .31 .31 . 63 . 63 .94 .25 .25 .25 . 50 .50 .75  1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1  .63 1.25 1.88 . 63 1.25 .63 .42 .83 1.25 .42 .83 .42 .31 .63 .94 . 31 . 63 .31 .25 .50 .75 .25 .50 .25  1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3  . 63 . 63 . 63 1. 25 1.25 1.88 .42 .42 .42 .83 .83 1.25 .31 .31 .31 . 63 .63 .94 .25 .25 .25 . 50 .50 .75  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5  3.13 3 .13 3 .13 3 .13 3 .13 3 .13 2 . 08 2. 08 2 . 08 2 . 08 2 . 08 2.08 1.56 1. 56 1.56 1. 56 1. 56 1. 56 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25  3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  5/8 ( . 63) 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/8 5/12 (.42) 5/12 5/12 5/12 5/12 5/12 5/16 (.31) 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/16 5/20 (.25) 5/20 5/20 5/20 5/20 5/20  .67  5  2 . 01  . 67  1.67  . 67  1.67  Note: exh. = exhaustive e x e c u t i o n s t . = s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g execution  115 T a b l e 10. Models f o r R e g r e s s i o n  Model  Components encodingresponse  Y  +  bo  Y' 2  exhaustive inference*  encodingresponse  3  4  +  encodingresponse  Y»  +  bO  b3V3  blVl  exhaustive mapping +  b3V3  exhaustive application* +  +  self-terminating mapping +  b4V4  +  encodingresponse  Y'  =  bO  exhaustive inference* +  response bO response bO  b4V4  b2V2  blVl exhaustive inference  +  +  b2V2  * = confounded components  b6V6 self-terminating application  +  b6V6 self-terminating application*  +  b6V6  exhaustive application* +  b5V5  self-terminating application  blVl  self-terminating inference*  b5V5  self-terminating application  encoding- s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g response inference* mapping  1M  4M  blVl exhaustive inference  bO  2-3M  blVl exhaustive inference  bO  1  exhaustive mapping  b6V6  self-terminating encoding +  b8V8  self-terminating self-terminating application* encoding +  b6V6  +  b8V8  116 mode of p r o c e s s i n g . with  exhaustive  terminating application,  T h i s means e x h a u s t i v e i n f e r e n c e i s confounded  application,  inference  is  as  i n Models  confounded  as i n Models 4 and  4M.  1 and  with  IM,  and  self-terminating  S i m i l a r l y , whenever  i s e x h a u s t i v e i t has a c o n s t a n t v a l u e and  self-  encoding  i s t h e r e f o r e confounded  w i t h the response component which i s a l s o a c o n s t a n t , as i n Models 1, 2, 3, 4, and  IM.  In the r e g r e s s i o n models, the r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s b l t o b8 are the mean v a l u e s of the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s 1 t o 8 (see Table 9).  Columns 1 and  5 are  identical  as  are  columns 2 and  r e g r e s s i o n models (see Table 10) c o l l a p s e i n t o the form by  Table  11  i n which  a  single  term  represents  the  6.  The  illustrated confounded  components.  Design  In t h i s d e s i g n a f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t i n g s u b j e c t s i s c r o s s e d with a task  factor  consisting  of  repeated  measures u s i n g  analogy b o o k l e t s . There are 24 independent predictor variables into  and  regression analysis  seven  24  measures f o r the t h r e e  p o s s i b l e models which are  for a total  picture  of 21  times  entered  S regressions  (where S equals the number of s u b j e c t s ) . Each model i s a r e g r e s s i o n equation  in  which  the  value  regression  coefficients  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l components have been  predetermined  (see T a b l e 11). The time taken  of  the  t o process each of  the components  117  T a b l e 11. R e g r e s s i o n equations  Model  Components  1  Y  bO exh. encoding/ response*  2  Y'  bO + exh. encoding/ response*  1.67V1 exh. inference  +  3  Y'  bO + exh. encoding/ response*  1.67V1 exh. inference  +  4  Y  bO exh. encoding/ response*  +  0. 67V2/V6 St. i n f e r e n c e / application*  1M  Y'  bO exh. encoding/ response*  +  1. 67V1/V5 exh . i n f e r e n c e / application*  1  1  2-3M Y  1  4M  Y  1  =  bO response  +  bO response  +  +  1. 67V1/V5 exh. i n f e r e n c e / application*  1.67V1 exh. inference  exh. = e x h a u s t i v e st. = self-terminating * = confounded components  +  +  1.67V3 exh. mapping  1.67V3 St. mapping  +  0.67V6 St. application  0.67V3 St. mapping  +  0.67V6 St. application  +  0.67V3 St. mapping  0.67V6 + st. application  0.67V2/V6 s t . inference/ application*  +  2.01V8 st. encoding 2.01V8 st. encoding  118 i s unknown; o n l y the mean time taken t o s o l v e an analogy  i s known.  M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s p a r t i t i o n s t h i s mean time  among the  t h e o r e t i c a l components. The model which b e s t f i t s the data i s the one  which  accounts  f o r most  enables componential  of  the  task  variance.  This  model  and  three  parameters t o be c a l c u l a t e d .  Procedure  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Reading and R e l a t e d T e s t s  The graduate  examiners  were  a  students experienced  s e s s i o n of approximately  which of the two  education  teacher  i n t e s t i n g . T r a i n i n g was  t h r e e hours and  a d m i n i s t e r i n g the t e s t s was to  special  given i n a  opportunity to p r a c t i s e  p r o v i d e d . The examiners were not  groups students  belonged.  The  students  told were  i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t , the Durrell  subtests,  approximately  one  and  the  Boder  test  hour. O r a l r e a d i n g was  in  a  single  session  tape-recorded,  of  enabling  the number of r e a d i n g e r r o r s and o t h e r s c o r e s t o be checked by the p r i n c i p a l researcher. The examiners marked the Boder word l i s t s as they proceeded. When a wordlist  student  could  (50 percent)  read on  no  more than  ten  words  f l a s h p r e s e n t a t i o n , two  in a  graded  more l i s t s were  p r e s e n t e d t o p r o v i d e a l a r g e sample of unknown words f o r the  119 s p e l l i n g t e s t . Students were asked t o draw a c l o c k f a c e from memory w h i l e t h e examiner s e l e c t e d twenty words f o r t h e s p e l l i n g t e s t . The twenty-word s p e l l i n g t e s t was then a d m i n i s t e r e d without any f u r t h e r marking  on t h e p a r t o f the examiners.  The word l i s t s were checked and t h e s p e l l i n g t e s t s marked by the p r i n c i p a l identification drawings  researcher using the g u i d e l i n e s o f Good  Phonetic  Equivalents  i n t h e manual f o r (GFEs).  were examined f o r evidence of r e v e r s a l s  The  clock  i n w r i t i n g and  p l a c i n g numbers o r evidence of number sequencing problems.  Although  some of t h e drawings were c r u d e l y executed, t h e r e was no evidence of any o f these problems. The drawings were t h e r e f o r e not r e f e r r e d t o a g a i n o r used i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l a t e r a n a l y s e s .  Administration of the P i c t u r e Analogies Test  The  examiner  who  administered  the analogy  b o o k l e t s was  a  q u a l i f i e d s c h o o l t e a c h e r who had no o t h e r involvement i n t h e t e s t i n g and  was unaware o f the student's group  membership. T r a i n i n g  was  g i v e n t o t h e examiner over a p e r i o d o f approximately t h r e e hours. The  schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o s u b j e c t s i n  groups  o f not more than f i v e . Where a s c h o o l had more than  five  s t u d e n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n Phase 2, they were d i v i d e d i n t o two s m a l l e r groups as a p p r o p r i a t e . I t was p o s s i b l e t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e twenty-four b o o k l e t s i n a s i n g l e s e s s i o n o f approximately one hour. The s e s s i o n s began w i t h  120 a p e r i o d o f i n s t r u c t i o n f o l l o w e d by a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t e n b o o k l e t s . A f t e r a f i v e minute break, i n s t r u c t i o n s were b r i e f l y reviewed and the  remaining  fourteen  b o o k l e t s completed.  The time  taken f o r  i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n was u s u a l l y no l o n g e r than t e n minutes and the time needed f o r g i v i n g - o u t and c o l l e c t i n g - i n t h e b o o k l e t s amounted to  about t e n minutes. During t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s e s s i o n s , t h r e e 8 by 11 i n c h c a r d s were  shown  t o t h e s t u d e n t s (Appendix  D) . The f i r s t  consisted  o f two  f i g u r e s approximately 5 inches h i g h and was used t o demonstrate the way i n which t h e a t t r i b u t e s c o u l d v a r y . The second and t h i r d cards each  showed  an analogy  problem  i n which  d i f f e r e d by one and two a t t r i b u t e s  the f i r s t  two  terms  respectively.  The s t u d e n t s were made f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e a t t r i b u t e s and t h e i r o p t i o n a l v a l u e s through t h e use o f Card 1; t h e format and g o a l o f an analogy problem were e x p l a i n e d u s i n g Cards 2 and 3. Emphasis was p l a c e d on c h o o s i n g from the response o p t i o n s t h e f i g u r e t h a t was as l i k e and as d i f f e r e n t from t h e t h i r d term as t h e second term was as  like  and as d i f f e r e n t  from  the f i r s t  term.  Questions were  answered and f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n s g i v e n u n t i l a l l s t u d e n t s appeared to understand what was expected o f them. F o l l o w i n g a b r i e f p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n i n which students completed a sheet c o n t a i n i n g f o u r a n a l o g i e s , t h e f i r s t s e t o f analogy b o o k l e t s were p l a c e d  sample  face-down  i n f r o n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s . They were i n s t r u c t e d t o t u r n t h e b o o k l e t s over when t o l d and s o l v e them i n t h e same way as they had p r a c t i s e d by c i r c l i n g one o f t h e two answer o p t i o n s . Students were a d v i s e d  121 t h a t i f they wished t o change an answer, t h e f i r s t response  should  be c r o s s e d out and t h e o t h e r one c i r c l e d . Students were t o l d t h a t they might be unable t o complete a l l the a n a l o g i e s i n a b o o k l e t and should not worry when t h i s o c c u r r e d . I t was a l s o p o i n t e d out t h a t i t was a d v i s a b l e not t o take n o t i c e of t h e o t h e r students as they were working on d i f f e r e n t at any g i v e n  booklets  time.  Scoring:  Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary  T e s t - Revised.  T h i s t e s t was marked by t h e examiner who a d m i n i s t e r e d i t . T e s t p r o t o c o l s were checked by t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r t o make sure t h e b a s a l and c e i l i n g s c o r e s had been i d e n t i f i e d c o r r e c t l y and t h e raw s c o r e s c a l c u l a t e d a c c u r a t e l y . No marking o r c a l c u l a t i n g e r r o r s were d e t e c t e d . The raw s c o r e s were transformed  into  a standard  score  (based on age) w i t h a mean o f 100 and standard d e v i a t i o n o f 15.  Boder T e s t o f Reading - S p e l l i n g  Patterns.  While t h i s t e s t was being administered, t h e examiners marked the words i n each graded word l i s t as they were read o r a l l y . These were l a t e r checked by t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r t o make sure t h e  122 spelling  tests  had  been  constructed  correctly.  The  principal  r e s e a r c h e r then marked the s p e l l i n g t e s t n o t i n g the number of words i n each l i s t t h a t were s p e l l e d  a c c u r a t e l y or met  the c r i t e r i a f o r  GFEs.  D u r r e l l A n a l y s i s of Reading  Difficulty.  In t h i s t e s t , a student's o r a l r e a d i n g was t a p e - r e c o r d e d . enabled  the  principal  researcher  r e a d i n g e r r o r s i n each category  to  and  assess  the  number  the number of  of  This oral  self-corrected  e r r o r s . Examiners a l s o tape-recorded the responses t o comprehension q u e s t i o n s making i t p o s s i b l e f o r the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r t o score these  answers. The  t o t a l times  comprehension s c o r e s  and  for oral  number and  were r e c o r d e d on the i n d i v i d u a l  and  type  record  silent  of o r a l  reading,  reading  the  errors  sheets.  Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s .  T h i s t e s t was marked by the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r . The  students  r e c o r d e d t h e i r responses i o n the t e s t b o o k l e t s . When the  booklets  were marked, t h e r e was  intended  response. clearly  no  confusion  O c c a s i o n a l l y a student  as  to  changed an  i n d i c a t e d . A l l answer b o o k l e t s  a student's answer but  were checked by  person and any b o o k l e t s i n which a marking e r r o r was  this a  was  second  d e t e c t e d were  123 r e s c o r e d a t h i r d time. Only t h r e e marking e r r o r s were d e t e c t e d i n 2328 (97 x 24) b o o k l e t s .  Data P r e p a r a t i o n  As t e s t s entered  were marked and s c o r e s  verified,  the scores  were  on t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d sheets. Once t h e s c o r e s f o r the  Phase I I t e s t s were entered  i n t o t h e computer, Phase I and Phase  I I f i l e s were merged.  Readino: and r e a d i n g - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s .  Twenty-three reading  and  scores  related  were  tests.  obtained  The  five  f o r each subtests  student of the  on the Stanford  D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t p r o v i d e d nine s c o r e s . Four o f these  scores  were o b t a i n e d from the Decoding component which measured p h o n e t i c analysis  o f consonants,  phonetic  a n a l y s i s o f vowels,  structural  a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g s y l l a b i c a t i o n , and s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g b l e n d i n g . The SDRT A u d i t o r y Vocabulary  s u b t e s t p r o v i d e d one score  f o r t h e Vocabulary component. F a c t u a l comprehension and i n f e r e n t i a l comprehension p r o v i d e d two s c o r e s f o r the Comprehension component. Two  scores  reflected  v a r i a b l e s obtained the  accuracy  comprehension a t speed.  of  from  the Reading  comprehension  at  Rate  speed  component and  total  124 Fourteen Durrell provided  scores  were  obtained  A n a l y s i s of Reading two  from  Difficulty.  measures of time and  two  three  subtests  O r a l and  of  silent  measures of  the  reading  comprehension  and the l i s t e n i n g t e s t p r o v i d e d one measure of comprehension. These measures were; o r a l r e a d i n g time, s i l e n t r e a d i n g time, o r a l r e a d i n g comprehension, comprehension.  silent In  reading  a d d i t i o n the  comprehension, oral  reading  and  test  listening  provided  nine  measures a s s o c i a t e d with o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s . They were p a r t - and whole-word r e p e t i t i o n , whole-word  p a r t - and  substitution,  part-  whole-word and  omission,  whole-word  part-  and  addition,  and  percentage o f s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s . The l a t t e r s c o r e e q u a l l e d the r a t i o o f t o t a l s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s t o the t o t a l e r r o r s . The the  identification  CCAT,  PPVT,  SDRT,  number of each student,  the  and  entered  Durrell  tests  were  scores  from  into  a  computer data f i l e by the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r . A graduate student helped t o compare a p r i n t o u t of the data with the i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d sheets t o make sure the e n t r i e s were one hundred p e r c e n t  accurate.  The  for  percentage  of  self-corrected  oral  reading  errors  each  y  student  was  Transformations  generated (SPSS  X  using  User's  SPSS  Guide,  1986).  subprogram Printouts  computer-generated s c o r e s were checked f o r accuracy.  Numeric of  these  125 Schematic  Picture Analogies.  The number o f c o r r e c t and i n c o r r e c t responses was recorded on an i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d sheet and entered i n t o a computer data A  computer  printout  of  t h e data  was  also  checked  with  file. the  i n d i v i d u a l r e c o r d sheet t o make sure t h e e n t r i e s were one hundred p e r c e n t a c c u r a t e . F o r each student t h e t o t a l number o f responses f o r each b o o k l e t was computed by adding t h e number c o r r e c t t o the number  of errors.  Mean  latencies  were computed  by d i v i d i n g the  number s o l v e d c o r r e c t l y and the t o t a l number o f responses i n t o 64, the  number  o f seconds  allowed  f o r completion  o f each  booklet.  Scores o f zero were recoded t o equal one t o make d i v i s i o n p o s s i b l e . The mean e r r o r r a t e f o r each b o o k l e t was computed by d i v i d i n g the number o f e r r o r s by the number o f a n a l o g i e s  completed.  126 CHAPTER V: RESULTS  The  results  organized  into  and  discussion  sections.  In  p r e s e n t e d of the r e a d i n g and  presented  the  first  this  section  r e l a t e d data and  used i n attempts t o subtype d i s a b l e d e x p l a i n s how  in  an  r e a d e r s . The  is  methods  second  section  the models p r e f e r r e d by i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s i n s o l v i n g  grouping  model. T h i s  are  overview  the v a r i o u s  schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s were determined and how formed by  chapter  students who  i s followed  subgroups were  showed p r e f e r e n c e  f o r the  by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the analogy subgroups  i n terms of components and  s t r a t e g i e s t h a t were used and  and  fourth  component s c o r e s .  same  The  part  examines the  solution  relationship  between the r e a d i n g and analogy data of Group D i n terms of c l u s t e r v e r s u s analogy subgroup membership, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the analogy subgroups,  and  correlations  ( c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e 1) and  between  observed  solution  times  reading v a r i a b l e s .  Reading Typology  Two involved  methods of  subtyping were used w i t h Group D.  the Boder t e s t which was  according to  t h e i r r e a d i n g and  designed t o c a t e g o r i z e  s p e l l i n g patterns.  method of c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s , i n v o l v e d t e c h n i q u e and subtests.  used the  The  students second,  a  a h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative  data c o l l e c t e d from the  Both methods are r e p o r t e d  The  first  but  only the  SDRT and  Durrell  statistical  127 clustering  was a b l e t o i d e n t i f y r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d subgroups.  The  In  this  Boder T e s t o f R e a d i n g - S p e l l i n g  study  characteristically by  the reading-disabled  very d i f f e r e n t  Patterns  sample  proved  from the c l i n i c a l  Boder. The m a j o r i t y o f d i s a b l e d readers  l i s t s a t a much h i g h e r l e v e l than expected. readers as those who had Reading Q u o t i e n t s  read  t o be  samples used  t h e graded word  Boder d e f i n e d d i s a b l e d (RQs) below 100 but o n l y  20 members o f Group D met t h i s c r i t e r i o n . The RQs o f those who d i d were n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y low t o be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o any o f t h e s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes (Table 8, p. 106). T h e r e f o r e i t was not possible  to identify  specific  reading  d i s a b i l i t y subtypes  using  t h i s method (Question 1 ) . Examination o f s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s alone i n d i c a t e d t h a t 25 were s i m i l a r t o those o f t h e r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes i d e n t i f i e d by Boder, but t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e i r Reading subtypes.  Quotient  d i s a b i l i t y as i n d i c a t e d by the  d i d not match the s p e c i f i c  The s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s a r e l i s t e d  reading  disability  i n Appendix E.  Cluster Analysis  The  cluster  a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d  out u s i n g  t h e UBC  CGroup  ( L a i , 1982) computer program. The technique used i s a h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative  technique  (see M o r r i s , B l a s h f i e l d ,  & Satz, 1981)  128 i n v o l v i n g Ward's  (1963) a l g o r i t h m  method, s u b j e c t s are  combined  f o r minimum v a r i a n c e .  i n a s e r i e s of stepwise  In  this  groupings  u s i n g a c r i t e r i o n based on p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y . At each step, groups are  paired,  contained  reducing  i n one  the  final  number by  one,  until  group. A p i c t o r i a l  a l l subjects  representation  are  of  the  p a i r i n g s i s p r o v i d e d by a h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e graph. The program a l s o p r o v i d e s a p l o t of the l o g a r i t h m i c e r r o r term, the s l o p e of which i s p r o p o r t i o n a l t o the r a t e of i n c r e a s e i n e r r o r . A marked change i n the s l o p e of the graph i n d i c a t e s a l a r g e i n c r e a s e i n e r r o r . The d e c i s i o n as t o how  many groups should be s e l e c t e d i s a i d e d by  the  h i e r a r c h i c a l t r e e graph and the e r r o r p l o t . In the p r e s e n t study, two c l u s t e r i n g analyses were completed. I n i t i a l l y Group N and Group D were combined t o see i f Group N c o u l d be  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from Group D u s i n g  related  v a r i a b l e s considered  identified  in  differentiated  this  in this  cluster  the  2 3 reading  study.  analysis,  Group N from Group D as  Of  and  the  Cluster  reading-  five 5  i t contained  groups clearly  a l l but  two  members of Group N. In the second a n a l y s i s Group D was c l u s t e r s o l u t i o n gave the b e s t r e s u l t and  3 contained  26,  20,  and  analyzed  alone.  A  three-  (Question 2 ) . C l u s t e r s 1,  2,  31 members r e s p e c t i v e l y . As the Boder  t e s t f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y subtypes w i t h i n Group D no comparison c o u l d be  made  (Question  between  these  c l u s t e r s and  the  results  of  that  test  3).  A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (p<.05)  129 among the (Table  clusters  on  12) . S i x t e e n  17  of  of  the  the  reading  and  related variables  d i f f e r e n c e s exceeded  a  significance  l e v e l of .01. T h i s r e s u l t confirms t h a t the groups c r e a t e d by h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative on  the  technique were s u b s t a n t i a l l y  majority of reading  and  related  variables.  different  Included  T a b l e 12 are the CCAT and PPVT v a r i a b l e s which r e p r e s e n t and v e r b a l a b i l i t y ,  the  in  nonverbal  respectively.  Box-and-Whisker P l o t s Box-and-Whisker  plots  (Tukey,  comparisons among the c l u s t e r s . permits  a  detailed  were  T h i s method was  illustration  w i t h i n each c l u s t e r . The  1977)  of  the  s i m i l a r i t i e s and  used  to  make  used because i t  distribution  of  scores  d i f f e r e n c e s i n batches  of data are noted through a comparison of t h e i r ranges, the amount of  o v e r l a p of t h e i r  boxes, the v a l u e  of t h e i r  medians,  and  the  number of t h e i r o u t s i d e and f a r - o u t v a l u e s . The boxes c o n t a i n the middle 50 p e r c e n t of s u b j e c t s c o r e s f o r each batch of data w i t h the remaining percent  50 p e r c e n t d i s t r i b u t e d , 25 percent above the box  below. T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e t o e s t i m a t e  and  25  the amount of  o v e r l a p between d i s t r i b u t i o n s . When comparing d i s t r i b u t i o n s : 1) i f the boxes do not o v e r l a p then t h e r e i s no s i m i l a r i t y between the middle 50 p e r c e n t of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s the s c o r e s of one  distribution  fall  (see F i g u r e 3a),  (2) i f a l l  above or below the median of  the o t h e r then they do not o v e r l a p a t l e a s t f i f t y p e r c e n t of the s c o r e s of t h a t d i s t r i b u t i o n  (see F i g u r e 3b), and  (3) i f n e i t h e r  130 T a b l e 12. A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e aittoncf r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y on r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s Variable Decoding SDRT PA (consonants) PA (vowels) SA ( s y l l a b l e s ) SA (blending) RR SDRT Accuracy Speed Time ( D u r r e l l ) OR time SR time Comp. (SDRT) AV Factual Inferential Comp. ( D u r r e l l ) OR SR List.Comp. OR e r r o r s P-w r e p . W-w r e p . P-w omm. W-w omm. P-w sub. W-w sub. P-w add. W-w add. S-C (%) Ability CCAT PPVT * = p<.05 **= p<.01  SS  219.,28 436.,42 1085.,55 710.,70 185.,69 151., 07  Error SS 670.,54 819.,30 4012 ..97 1466., 16 1203 ..75 2053 ..30  31431.,61 40342..21 20870., 18 86384..99 46.,73 31., 58 7., 11 51.,45 370.,89 117.,20 3 ,20 . 1132 .,47 120.,43 33,,74 92 . , 75 259.. 01 24..54 49..61 , 05 457..83 77..99  clusters  MS  Error MS  F (3 ,76)  109., 64 218.,21 542.,78 355.,35  9.06 11. 07 54. 23 19. 81  12 . 10** 19 .71** 10 . 01** 17 .94**  92..84 75.,53 15715.,80 10435., 09  16 . 27 27 . 75 545 . 17 1167 .37  5 .71** 2 .72 28 .83** 9 4 * * 8.  1670..5 546..78 498..61  23.,37 15.,79 3 ,55 .  22 .58 7 . 39 6 .74  1 . 04 2 . 14 . 53  318,.86 5969..89 670..22  25.,72 185.,44 58., 60  4 .31 80 . 67 9 . 06  5 .97** 2 .30 6 .47**  12..93 1567,.53 255,.93 308,.20 294,.06 481,. 06 121,.59 256,.91 1,.24  1., 60 566.,23 60..22 16..87 46.. 38 129.. 51 12,.27 24..80 . 02  . 17 21 . 18 3 . 45 4 . 17 3 . 97 6 . 50 1 .64 3 .47 .20  9 . 16** 26 .73** 17 .41** 4 . 05* 11 . 67** 19 . 92** 7 .47** 7 . 15** 1 .45  3787,.10 7561,.98  228..92 39.. 00  102 . 19 88 .88  2 .24 .44  131  (a) No o v e r l a p between boxes o f Groups A and B X  T}  #  correct  Groups  IK  8  (b) No o v e r l a p between d i s t r i b u t i o n o f Group A and the median of Group B  )  #  correct  I „ T \\oo  Groups  L  J_  8  (c) No o v e r l a p o f t h e boxes of Groups A and B with the medians of t h e o t h e r d i s t r i b u t i o n  #  correct  Groups  F i g u r e 3. Overlap  I  XT?.  8  o f box and whisker  plots  132 box o v e r l a p s the median of the other t h e r e i s no s i m i l a r i t y between a t l e a s t h a l f of the middle f i f t y p e r c e n t of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s Figure  3c) . In the present  study,  batches of data  f o r any  (see given  v a r i a b l e are c o n s i d e r e d t o be more d i s s i m i l a r than a l i k e i f any these c o n d i t i o n s are  of  satisfied.  A Comparison o f R e a d i n g - D i s a b i l i t y C l u s t e r s  F i g u r e 4 shows the p l o t s of the Decoding  component.  Cluster  1  f o u r SDRT v a r i a b l e s f o r the  had  more  consonants and vowels than C l u s t e r s 2 and had  more d i f f i c u l t y  syllables  into  difficulty  3, and  decoding  C l u s t e r s 1 and  s e p a r a t i n g words i n t o s y l l a b l e s and  words  than  Cluster  3.  Cluster  2  had  2  blending phonetic  a n a l y s i s s k i l l s t h a t resembled those of C l u s t e r 3 but C l u s t e r 3 had better structural analysis s k i l l s . The  SDRT Vocabulary  Auditory  Vocabulary  clusters  ( F i g u r e 5 ) . The  component, which was  subtest,  did  not  median v a l u e s  represented  discriminate  by  the  among  the  f o r C l u s t e r s 2 and  the same and c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s was Figure component:  6 shows the factual  and  p l o t s of the inferential  SDRT Reading  3 were  evident.  Comprehension  comprehension.  Members  of  C l u s t e r 3 tended t o have h i g h e r f a c t u a l comprehension scores than members of C l u s t e r 1 but C l u s t e r s 1 and  2 had  the same median and  t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s were s i m i l a r . N e i t h e r f a c t u a l nor comprehension d i s c r i m i n a t e d among the  clusters.  inferential  133  Phonetic Analysis (Vowels)  Phonetic Analysis (Consonants)  l% 8<L  A. 0k  #  #  correct  correct <*3  \  2-  3  I  Clusters  Z  Clusters Structural Analysis (Blending)  Structural Analysis (Syllabication) ¥1  at  correct  correct  #  #  3 to  I  X  Clusters F i g u r e 4.  3 Clusters  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Decoding component v a r i a b l e s  134  Auditory Vocabulary  3  37  -I 11  I  Z  3  Clusters  F i g u r e 5. Box-and-whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on SDRT Vocabulary component v a r i a b l e  135  Factual  Inferenti al  Comprehension  if  Comprehension  e  r-  ax  correct  correct  0 3 Clusters  Figure  6.  Clusters  Box-and-whisker Reading  plots  Comprehension  for  Group  component  D clusters variables  on  SDRT  136  Correct  Total  Responses  Responses  33  S B  3*r 5  6 AX  T"  correct  F /  i J —  2.  Clusters  Figure  7.  Number  of  I.  Responses  ..1.  7.  I  3  Clusters  Box-and-whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s Reading Rate component variables  on  SDRT  137 The  two  variables  associated  with  t h e SDRT  component measured speed and accuracy o f r e a d i n g  Reading  Rate  relatively  easy  m a t e r i a l . The number o f c o r r e c t responses and t h e t o t a l number o f responses  a t speed  a r e shown  a c c u r a t e than C l u s t e r  i n Figure  7.  2. Speed o f r e a d i n g  Cluster  3 was  more  d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e  between t h e c l u s t e r s . In F i g u r e 8, t h e box p l o t s o f D u r r e l l O r a l and S i l e n t reading time a r e shown. Members o f C l u s t e r 3 were f a s t e r o r a l readers than e i t h e r o f t h e o t h e r c l u s t e r s . Members o f C l u s t e r 1 were f a s t e r o r a l readers  than  Cluster  silent  readers.  reading  speed.  The  3. Members  Clusters  box p l o t s  of Cluster  1 and 3 were s i m i l a r  of D u r r e l l Oral  Reading,  L i s t e n i n g Comprehension are shown i n F i g u r e 2 had b e t t e r  Oral  c l u s t e r s and t h e r e  2 were t h e slowest in their  S i l e n t reading  and  9. Members o f C l u s t e r  Reading Comprehension than those was l e s s v a r i a b i l i t y  silent  i n t h e other  i n t h e i r scores.  Overlap  of t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r S i l e n t Reading comprehension shows t h a t the c l u s t e r s were a l i k e on t h i s v a r i a b l e . Members o f C l u s t e r 1 had b e t t e r l i s t e n i n g comprehension than members o f C l u s t e r 3. The Figure  box p l o t s f o r o r a l r e a d i n g  e r r o r v a r i a b l e s a r e shown i n  10. Of t h e e i g h t types o f e r r o r s , C l u s t e r 2 made more p a r t -  and whole-word r e p e t i t i o n s , whole-word s u b s t i t u t i o n s , and p a r t - and whole-word a d d i t i o n s and  than e i t h e r C l u s t e r s  1 o r 3, and more p a r t -  whole-word omissions and part-word s u b s t i t u t i o n s than C l u s t e r  3. Members o f C l u s t e r 2 a l s o d i s p l a y e d  t h e most v a r i a b i l i t y i n  138  Oral  Si lent  Reading  Reading  Time  y3e  Time  ax  Time  Time i n Seconds  in  Seconds  f7  Clusters  Figure  8-  Box-and-whisker plots for Reading Time v a r i a b l e s  CIusters  Group  0 clusters  on  Durrell  139  Oral Reading Comprehension  2.3  ft  # correct  ;  %  3  Clusters  Silent Reading  Listening  Comprehension  Comprehension  #  #  correct  correct  3* >  I  CI u s t e r s  CIusters  Figure  9.  Box-and-whisker plots for Comprehension v a r i a b l e s  a  Group  D clusters  on  Durrell  3  140  Part-word  Whole-word Repetition Errors  Repetition Errors  i3  # of errors  # Of errors  a  a I  X.  Clusters  Clusters  Whole-word  Part-word  Omission  Omission  Errors  Errors  8  S  a  Si # of errors  81  # of errors  E  X  Clusters  CIusters  10.  Box-and-whisker p l o t s f o r Group Oral Reading Error variables  .1  *  1  Figure  3  D clusters  on  Durrell  141  Part-word Substitution Errors  II r  Whole-word Substitution Errors  8  # of errors  # of errors  i  CIusters  _a.  3  Clusters  Whole-word Addition Errors  Part-word Addition Errors S  ax 8  X  B2 # of errors  # of errors  J.:  / Clusters  a..  3  Clusters  F i g u r e 10 ( c o n t . ) Box-and-whisker p l o t s f o r Group D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l Oral Reading E r r o r v a r i a b l e s  142 their  errors  scores  f o r a l l error  variables  except  part-word  s u b s t i t u t i o n . C l u s t e r 1 made more p a r t - and whole-word omissions, part-word s u b s t i t u t i o n s and part-word a d d i t i o n s than C l u s t e r 3. The t o t a l number o f e r r o r s and s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s were used to  calculate  t h e percentage  shown i n F i g u r e  They are  11. No o v e r l a p e x i s t s between any of t h e boxes f o r  t o t a l errors confirming variable.  of s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s .  Cluster  t h a t t h e c l u s t e r s were d i s s i m i l a r on t h i s  2 made more  oral  reading  errors  than  either  C l u s t e r s 1 o r 3 and C l u s t e r 1 made more e r r o r s than C l u s t e r 3. The b o x - p l o t f o r s e l f - c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s shows t h a t , although C l u s t e r 2 made t h e most e r r o r s , members o f t h i s c l u s t e r a l s o s e l f - c o r r e c t e d the  most e r r o r s . The p r o p o r t i o n  of s e l f - c o r r e c t e d errors  ranged  from zero t o 58 p e r c e n t . C l u s t e r 3 had t h e l a r g e s t range but the amount o f o v e r l a p the  amount  of  shows t h a t t h e c l u s t e r s were s i m i l a r . Although  overlap  shows  that  the  clusters  were  similar.  Although members o f C l u s t e r 2 made t h e most e r r o r s , members s e l f c o r r e c t e d i n a p r o p o r t i o n s i m i l a r t o members o f t h e o t h e r c l u s t e r s . The  clusters  were  also  compared  on  t h e nonverbal  ability  v a r i a b l e (CCAT) and t h e v e r b a l a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e (PPVT) (see F i g u r e 12). N e i t h e r  of these v a r i a b l e s was a b l e t o d i s c r i m i n a t e among the  c l u s t e r s although t h e scores o f C l u s t e r 2 show t h e most v a r i a b i l i t y f o r t h e CCAT and t h e l e a s t v a r i a b i l i t y  f o r t h e PPVT.  143  Total Errors  5%  errors  \  X  3  Clusters Percent SelfCorrected Errors  SelfCorrected Errors  IS  *81  3  #  Self-  Percent  Corrected  ' Clusters  r g n  u r e  n  -  X  3  CI u s t e r s  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r G r o u p D c l u s t e r s on D u r r e l l Oral Reading Error v a r i a b l e s : Total E r r o r s , Total SelfC o r r e c t e d E r r o r s and P r o p o r t i o n S e l f - C o r r e c t e d E r r o r s  144  CCAT  PPVT  1/7  Universal Age Score  Scaled Score  .A.  r a  i  3  I  12. B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r and  Nonverbal  .L-  *  3  Clusters  Clusters  Figure  a  plots Ability  for  Group  Variables  D clusters  on  Verbal  145 Summary o f C l u s t e r s  Members o f C l u s t e r 1 were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e p o o r e s t i n t h e decoding  skills  component. They were second i n t h e number o f o r a l  r e a d i n g e r r o r s made and second i n o r a l r e a d i n g speed. Members o f C l u s t e r 2 were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e g r e a t e s t number o f o r a l r e a d i n g errors  and t h e slowest  reading  speed.  Despite  this,  their  r e a d i n g comprehension was b e t t e r than  that of the other  When r e q u i r e d t o read  made fewer responses  a t speed, they  oral  groups. than  C l u s t e r 1 and were l e s s a c c u r a t e than e i t h e r o f t h e c l u s t e r s even though  the  material  was  easier.  Members  of  Cluster  3  were  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the b e s t decoding s k i l l s , t h e f a s t e s t o r a l r e a d i n g time  and t h e l e a s t  oral  reading  errors,  y e t they  d i d not have  h i g h e r o r a l o r s i l e n t r e a d i n g comprehension s c o r e s than t h e other clusters.  Componential A n a l y s i s  I n s p e c t i o n o f t h e Data  There Criterion  were  three  Variable 1  solved correctly,  criterion (CV1) was  variables  t h e mean  f o r each  latency  booklet.  f o r analogies  C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e 2(CV2) was t h e mean l a t e n c y  f o r t h e t o t a l number o f a n a l o g i e s completed, and C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e 3 (CV3) was t h e mean e r r o r r a t e . The mean s c o r e ,  standard  146 T a b l e 13. D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r c r i t e r i o n  variables  Group  Variable  Mean  SD  Range  Total n=97  CV1 CV2 CV3  9.52 6.48 0.19  4.74 2.12 0.16  4.79-30.03 4.02-16.76 0.00 - 0.58  Group D n=77  CV1 CV2 CV3  10.09 6.62 0.25  4.35 2.20 0.13  4.79-30.03 4.02 - 16.76 0.00 - 0.58  Group N n=20  CV1 CV2 CV3  7.3 0 5.93 0.16  2.28 1.69 0.10  4.74-12.28 4.06 - 11.21 0.00 - 0.43  147 d e v i a t i o n , and range f o r each o f these v a r i a b l e s a r e shown i n Table 13. Before componential a n a l y s i s was undertaken, i n s p e c t i o n o f the data was c a r r i e d out t o determine t h e number o f v a r i a b l e s t o be a n a l y z e d . C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e s 1 and 2 both had s u f f i c i e n t  variance  t o make f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s worthwhile but CV3 had v a r i a n c e  close to  zero,  making f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s  i m p r a c t i c a l . Although CV1 and CV2  were both analyzed, only CV1 i s d i s c u s s e d r e f l e c t s q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y only q u a n t i t y .  Results  I n d i v i d u a l Regression  variable.  Regression  because t h i s  o f performance whereas CV2 r e f l e c t s  f o r CV2 a r e l i s t e d  There were 24 scores  at length  i n Appendix E.  Analysis  f o r each i n d i v i d u a l f o r each  analysis  was  carried  out u s i n g  criterion t h e SPSS  X subprogram R e g r e s s i o n (SPSS  User's Guide, 1986) w i t h f o r c e d  entry  of t h e independent v a r i a b l e s f o r each o f t h e seven models t h e o r i z e d by  Sternberg. The  f i r s t d e c i s i o n t o be made i n s e l e c t i n g t h e p r e f e r r e d model  was  acceptance o r r e j e c t i o n o f Models 1 t o 4. T h i s was based upon  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g encoding i n Models 2-3M and  4M and t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e mapping component i n Models 1 t o 4. Models 1 t o 4 were a u t o m a t i c a l l y  r e j e c t e d i f t h e mapping component  was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I f the s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g encoding i n Models 2-3M and 4M was s i g n i f i c a n t Models 1 t o 4 were  again  148 r e j e c t e d as s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode was p r e f e r r e d t o e x h a u s t i v e mode. A f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n was made t o accept o r r e j e c t Models 1 t o 4, the models  were  evaluated  according  to five  criteria  (Sternberg  &  R i f k i n , 1979).  2 1. S i g n i f i c a n c e o f i n c r e a s e i n R .  The model p r e f e r r e d on t h i s  criterion  i s t h e one w i t h t h e  2 highest value have  similar  o f R . S i m i l a r models such as 2-3M and 4M tend t o 2 v a l u e s o f R so i t i s necessary t o c o n s i d e r other  c r i t e r i a t o d i s t i n g u i s h between them. When one model w i t h 2 R  differs  from another 2 •  with the l a r g e r R the a d d i t i o n a l  larger  .. by t h e a d d i t i o n o f a component, t h e model 2  i s only p r e f e r r e d i f t h e i n c r e a s e i n R , due t o  component,  i s significant.  T h i s i s judged by the  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the value of F f o r the regression c o e f f i c i e n t of that  component. 2. The v a l u e o f r e g r e s s i o n F.  The v a l u e o f F f o r each r e g r e s s i o n equation i s r e l a t e d t o t h e 2 value of R  and t h e number o f components i n t h e model. Where two  models d i f f e r by one component, as i n t h e case o f 2-3M and 4M, t h e model w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l component has t h e s m a l l e r v a l u e o f F even though  i t may  have  the larger  value  for R . 2  Therefore,  the  s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l not t h e s i z e o f r e g r e s s i o n F i s c o n s i d e r e d i n  149 s e l e c t i n g the p r e f e r r e d model. I f two models have the same l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e they a r e judged t o be e q u a l l y p r e f e r r e d .  3. The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s .  The v a l u e o f F f o r a r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t e s whether it  differs  significantly  from  c o n s i d e r e d t o have been used,  zero then  or not. I f a  component  i t must d i f f e r  is  significantly  from zero. In i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s , s i g n i f i c a n c e i s s e t as p<.10 as the  models  personal  tend  t o be  less  stable  (Sternberg,  July  27,  1987;  communication).  4. Decrease i n standard e r r o r of e s t i m a t e .  The  standard  (Sternberg  error  & Rifkin,  o f estimate  1979). As  indicates  the standard  "badness o f error  of  fit"  estimate  2 .  decreases from one model t o another, the v a l u e o f R the  standard  addition  of  considered component  error a  of estimate  component,  t o determine i s preferred.  parsimonious  model  is  then  f o r a model  If  decreases  the p r o p o r t i o n  whether  the model  the  preferred.  decrease  increases. I f  of  decrease  with  the  is  small  Sternberg  &  w i t h the is  additional the  Rifkin  more (1979)  c o n s i d e r e d p r o p o r t i o n a l decreases i n the standard e r r o r o f estimate between Models 2-3M and 4M o f .12, .11, and .03 t o be  unimportant,  whereas a p r o p o r t i o n a l decrease of .19 was c o n s i d e r e d l a r g e enough  150 t o warrant  the i n c l u s i o n of the a d d i t i o n a l parameter i n  2-3M.  5. The nature of component e s t i m a t e s .  A  component  indicates  that  estimate the  that d i f f e r s  component  has  significantly  probably  been  from  zero  used.  Small  i n s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e parameter e s t i m a t e s are regarded i n the same way  as s m a l l p o s i t i v e i n s i g n i f i c a n t parameter e s t i m a t e s . However,  component e s t i m a t e s r e p r e s e n t the mean time taken t o p r o c e s s component.  As  negative  time  is  not  possible,  small  negative  parameter e s t i m a t e s are probably a t t r i b u t a b l e t o sampling whereas l a r g e n e g a t i v e v a l u e s invalid  and  the  additive  i n d i c a t e t h a t the  combination  rule  the  error,  l i n e a r model i s  has  probably  been  v i o l a t e d . Models w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e components are p r e f e r r e d t o those w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e e s t i m a t e s .  I n d i v i d u a l A n a l y s i s of Group D  2 The  values  of R  and  r e g r e s s i o n F were s m a l l e r than  r e p o r t e d by Sternberg & R i f k i n  (1979) and Wilson  those  (1980) r e f l e c t i n g  the r e d u c t i o n i n the amount of v a r i a n c e a v a i l a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s a t the i n d i v i d u a l at  the  group  l e v e l . R e s u l t s a l s o tended level  so  the  significance  t o be l e s s s t a b l e level  (Sternberg, p e r s o n a l communication, J u l y 27, inspection  of the  regression coefficients  was  set  at  than .10  1987). A p r e l i m i n a r y  f o r mapping and  self-  151 t e r m i n a t i n g encoding i n d i c a t e d t h a t none o f t h e s u b j e c t s had shown p r e f e r e n c e f o r Models 1 t o 4 so s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were a p p l i e d t o Models IM, 2-3M  and 4M o n l y .  I n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s o f CV1 i n d i c a t e d t h a t 29 students i n Group D  (37.7%) p r e f e r r e d Model 4M  (Table 14) and 12 students  (15.6%)  p r e f e r r e d Model IM (Table 15). These groups a r e h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as Subgroup 4M and Subgroup IM r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i r t y - s i x students (46.8%) had no p r e f e r r e d model. W i t h i n t h i s group, two subgroups could  be  detected.  regression  F values  Eighteen but  their  students models  (23.3%)  had  contained  significant  large  negative  parameter e s t i m a t e s t h a t were o f t e n s i g n i f i c a n t and l a r g e standard e r r o r of estimate  i n d i c a t i n g a v e r y poor f i t o f the data t o the  models. T h i s group w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Subgroup NM1 1) . The  remaining  eighteen  students  (23.3%) had few  (No Model significant  parameter e s t i m a t e s and no s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s f o r r e g r e s s i o n F i n any model. T h i s group w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Subgroup NM2  (No Model  2) .  I n d i v i d u a l A n a l y s i s o f Group N  I n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s of CV1 f o r Group N i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o u r t e e n students  (70%) p r e f e r r e d Model 4M and one student  Model IM (see T a b l e 16). Two students s i m i l a r t o those  (5%) p r e f e r r e d  (10%) had r e g r e s s i o n models  of the members o f Subgroup NM1  were s i m i l a r t o those of students i n Subgroup  and t h r e e  NM2.  (15%)  152 T a b l e 14. S u b j e c t s i n Group D w i t h p r e f e r r e d Model 4M  Component estimates Student # St. Inference/ St. Response Application Encoding D 1 D 2 D 4 D 5 D 9 D14 D16 D19 D22 D2 3 D24 D25 D31 D3 5 D36 D43 D49 D50 D51 D57 D58 D59 D60 D61 D62 D63 D64 D71 D74 Total + = * = **= St.  R  2  F  2.62+ 1. 69 -0.27 -1.25 2.50 0.86 9.16* 0.30 0.56 0.32 -0.16 2.25 1.58 -1.14 0. 03 3.15+ -0.43 1.21 2 . 76 8.56** 0. 64 -0.28 3 .18 3.00* 1.83 4.24* 0.92 -1.74 5.97*  1.17 1.54 2.49* 3.05* 4.29* 1.15** -1.94 1.99** 1.76* 0.76+ 1.35** 0.51 1.52* 1. 60** 0.87** 2.75* 1.96** 1.53 1.50 0.99 0.96* 1.60* 4.16** 2.30* 1.00 1.00 2.17+ 2.59** 0.67  7.01 3.39 2.30 3.44+ -0.56 2.09** 7.41* 2.01+ 2.93* 3.45** 2.70** 6.45** 2 .10+ 3.29** 3.22** -0.86 2.00+ 1.77 4.35* 2.63* 3.21** 2.44* 0.55 0.85 6.45** 2.86 4 . 57* 3 . 92* 3.56*  .45 .30 .31 .29 .43 .76 .29 .48 .33 .27 .72 .23 .41 .46 .49 .55 .39 .43 .31 .73 .35 . 32 .40 . 60 . 30 .40 . 27 . 32 . 64  8.75** 4 .40* 4.74* 4.26* 7.81** 33.86** 4.24* 9.62** 5.05* 3 .79* 26.58** 3 .23 + 7.31* 8.75** 10.05** 12.73** 6.61** 8.03** 4 . 64* 27.65** 5.58* 5.04* 7.05** 15.71** 4 .39* 6.90** 3 . 89* 4.82* 18.30**  1.80**  1. 63**  3.08**  .95  184.88**  p<.01 p<.05 p<.01 = self-terminating  execution  a est  1.97 2 . 39 2.77 3.23 4.64 0. 63 5. 06 1. 67 2 .16 1.11 0. 62 2 .22 1.99 1.11 0. 69 2.55 1.76 1.76 3 .11 2 . 55 1.26 1.66 5. 04 2 .22 2 .13 2 . 88 3 .15 2 .42 2 .17 0.43  153 T a b l e 15. S u b j e c t s i n Group D w i t h p r e f e r r e d Model 1M  Student #  Component e s t i m a t e s Exh.Inference/ Exh. Encoding/ Application Response  R  F  a  est  D 6 D12 D15 D30 D3 3 D39 D44 D48 D54 D65 D67 D70  1.87+ 3.32* 5.63** 2 . 00** 7.11** 4 . 37** 2.14** 5.19** 1.68** 4.69** 1. 32+ 0.88+  5.50** 3.29 -0.48 4 . 32** 0.11 2.20 4.20** 0.01 5.93** 5.18+ 6.18** 6.09**  . 13 .20 .48 . 53 .46 . 61 .27 .39 .42 .31 .15 . 13  3 .22 + 5.47* 20.47** 25.06** 18.55** 33.84** 8.19** 14.22** 15.71** 10.05** 3.80+ 3 .17+  3.80 5.17 4 . 54 1.46 6. 02 2.74 2.74 5. 02 1.55 5.40 2.47 1.80  Total  3.35**  3.55**  . 72  56.23**  4 .11  + = p<. 1 * = p<.05 **= p<.01 Exh. = e x h a u s t i v e e x e c u t i o n  154 T a b l e 16. S u b j e c t s i n Group N who p r e f e r r e d Models 4M and IM  Component estimates f o r Model 4M Student Response St. Inference/ S.T. # Application Encoding N 2 N 3 N 6 N 7 N 9 Nil N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 N17 N18 N19  Student #  0.83 0.96 0.18 0.54 0.91 0.27 0.06 1. 63 0. 01 1.03 2.29+ 0.48 1.50 0.22  1. 39** 1.31** 2.43** 2.83** 1.50** 0.49 1.44** 1.73+ 1.11* 0.73+ 0. 66 2.52** 0.20 3.19**  1.79** 2.48** 1.78** 2.23 + 2.75** 3.58** 3.08** 3.22** 2.91** 3.22** 3.45** 1.59* 4.33** 3 .86*  R  2  .69 .55 .52 .54 . 50 .22 .40 .33 . 37 . 38 .31 .48 .12 .41  F 23 .84** 12 .93** 11 .26** 12 .21** 10 . 30** 2 .98 + 7 . 02** 5 .28* 6 . 16** 6 . 30** 4 .72* 9 . 51** 1 .42 + 7 .2**  a est  0.86 1.16 1.84 1.89 0.97 0.85 1. 37 2.57 1.11 1.15 1.99 1.90 2 . 01 3.00  Component e s t i m a t e s f o r Model IM Exh.Inference/ Application  N 4 + = p<.10 * = p<.05 **= p<.01  3 . 95+  Exh. Encoding/ Response 2.91+  R  —> 2  16  F 4 .26+  a est  7.00  155  A n a l y s i s a t the Group L e v e l  When the data were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s the groups (see T a b l e 17), Group N showed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r Model 4M. W i t h i n Group D, Subgroup 1M c o n t i n u e d t o p r e f e r Model 1M and Subgroup 4M c o n t i n u e d t o p r e f e r Model  4M,  with  a  stronger  group model  emerging  i n each  D e s p i t e t h e apparent f a i l u r e o f members of Subgroup NM2 model,  a  group p r e f e r e n c e  regression  equation  f o r Model  indicated  only  1M a  emerged.  weak  case.  t o use a  However,  preference  for  this 1M.  Although the v a l u e o f r e g r e s s i o n F and the component e s t i m a t e s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t p<.01, t h i s model accounted f o r o n l y twenty percent of the v a r i a n c e . The 1M r e g r e s s i o n equation f o r Subgroup NM1  was the one t h a t  2  b e s t f i t t h e d a t a . However,  d e s p i t e an R  o f .72, i t had a l a r g e  standard  o f 4.11.  component  error  o f estimate  inference/application component  estimate  was for  positive  The and  estimate f o r  significant  encoding/response  was  but  the  negative  and  insignificant. Use of  Components  The r e s u l t s o f i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s o f CV1 data i n d i c a t e t h a t 53.2 model  p e r c e n t o f the students compared  t o 75 p e r c e n t  i n Group D showed p r e f e r e n c e f o r a i n Group N. The r a t i o  of  students  p r e f e r r i n g Model 4M and 1M were 29 and 12 r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r d i s a b l e d  156 T a b l e 17. Model f i t s f o r Group N and model subgroups f o r Group N and Group D  Group (Preferred (Model) Inf.  Component e s t i m a t e s I n f . / App. App.  Enc.  Enc./ Resp. Resp.  R  2  F  a est  2.88**  0.61  4.15**  . 69 22 .98**  1.05  Subgroup 4M (Model 4M) n=29  1.80**  1.63**  3.08**  .95 184. 88**  .43  Subgroup IM (Model IM) n=12  3.35**  3.55**  .72  Subgroup NM1 (Model IM) n=18  8.42**  -.69  . 72 56. 09**  4.11  Subgroup NM2 (Model IM) n=18  1.67*  8.76**  .20  2.57  Group N (Model 4M) n=2 0 Group D  * = p<.05 **= p<.01 Inf. = Inference App. = A p p l i c a t i o n Enc. = Encoding Resp.= Response  56. 23**  5. 65*  1. 63  157 r e a d e r s and 14 t o 1 f o r normal r e a d e r s . The s t u d e n t s who i n d i c a t e d p r e f e r e n c e f o r a model used t h e encoding, i n f e r e n c e , and  response  components  hypothesised  by  application,  Sternberg's  component  t h e o r y o f a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g (Question 4) although i n f e r e n c e was confounded  with a p p l i c a t i o n  i n Models 4M and IM and encoding was  confounded w i t h response i n Model IM. The mapping component was not used. T h i r t y - s i x students i n Group D and f i v e i n Group N d i d not i n d i c a t e p r e f e r e n c e f o r any o f t h e models so t h a t i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o say which components they used,  i f any. The m a j o r i t y o f Group  N used encoding, i n f e r e n c e , a p p l i c a t i o n , and response  components,  t h e r e f o r e Hypothesis 4.1 i s not r e j e c t e d .  Use o f t h e L i n e a r Combination  Examination  Rule  o f t h e amount  of variance  explained  by the  r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n o f t h e p r e f e r r e d model f o r each subgroup w i t h i n Group D (Table 17) i n d i c a t e s t h e e x t e n t t o which members used the 2 linear  combination  rule  (Question  5 ) . An  R  equal  to  .95 f o r  Subgroup 4M supports the view t h a t t h e l i n e a r combination r u l e was 2 used by t h i s group. An R  equal t o .72 f o r Subgroup IM i n d i c a t e s  t h a t t h e l i n e a r combination lesser some  e x t e n t . Indeed,  of t h e i r  Although  a t the i n d i v i d u a l  equations  Subgroup  NM1  r u l e was used by t h i s group but t o a  was  also  significant 2 had an R  p r e f e r r e d group model IM, the e x h a u s t i v e  level only  equal  regression  F for  a t p<.10  level.  to  .72  for their  encoding/response  158 component was n e g a t i v e and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . negative standard  and o f t e n error  significant  o f estimate  t h a t t h e assumption  In a d d i t i o n t h e l a r g e  parameter  of t h e i r  estimates  and l a r g e  i n d i v i d u a l models  indicates  o f l i n e a r p r o c e s s i n g was not f e a s i b l e f o r t h i s 2  group. Subgroup NM2, w i t h an R equal t o .20 a l s o appears v i o l a t e d t h e l i n e a r combination  r u l e . The normal reader group had  a r e g r e s s i o n model t h a t accounted data  and  use  of  the  T h e r e f o r e , Hypothesis  linear  t o have  f o r 69% o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e  combination  rule  is  indicated.  5.1 i s not r e j e c t e d .  Use o f E x h a u s t i v e v e r s u s S e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g Mode  Preference  f o r Model  4M  indicates  t h e use  of  a  self-  t e r m i n a t i n g mode o f p r o c e s s i n g whereas e x h a u s t i v e p r o c e s s i n g was used by those who showed p r e f e r e n c e f o r Model IM. The m a j o r i t y o f students i n Group D and Group N who used a model p r e f e r r e d s e l f t e r m i n a t i n g mode. The groups d i f f e r e d i n t h e r a t i o o f members who showed p r e f e r e n c e  for this  mode. The r a t i o  o f d i s a b l e d readers  u s i n g s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode t o those u s i n g e x h a u s t i v e mode was 29 to  12. F o r normal  readers  the r a t i o  was  14  t o 1. A  greater  p r o p o r t i o n o f normal readers appeared t o p r e f e r a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g s t r a t e g y than d i s a b l e d readers  (Question 6) and Hypothesis  6.1 i s  not r e j e c t e d . However, t h i s r e s u l t would be more c o n c l u s i v e had t h e number o f normal readers been s i m i l a r t o t h e number o f d i s a b l e d readers.  159 Solution  Scores  D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r each of the model groups are shown i n Table  18.  Although  CV3  data were not  subjected  to regression  a n a l y s i s , i t i s i n c l u d e d i n the d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s because i t enables  a  criterion  comparison variable  CV2  of CV2  data  examination solved  to  the  total  Subgroup NM1  be  made  among  represents  the  only  speed  i n d i c a t e s t h a t , on  number  of  analogies  subgroups. of  average,  i n the  took the most time. Comparison of CV2  was  the most a c c u r a t e w i t h l i t t l e  the  processing, Subgroup  s h o r t e s t time w i t h CV1  r e p r e s e n t s speed and accuracy and i n s p e c t i o n of CV3 Subgroup 4M  As  1M and  which  indicates that  d i f f e r e n c e between  the o t h e r t h r e e .  C a l c u l a t i o n of Component  In  the  regression  Scores  equations  the  independent  or  predictor  v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each component i n d i c a t e the mean number of  times  that  component  regression coefficients the mean time taken a  single  is  used  in  associated with  solving  each component  f o r a s i n g l e execution  regression  analysis,  r e p r e s e n t s mean s o l u t i o n l a t e n c y  the  analogies.  The  represent  of t h a t component. In  criterion  variable  ( f o r an i n d i v i d u a l  which  or group) i s  p a r t i t i o n e d among the components i n the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n . These p a r t i t i o n e d s c o r e s are the component s c o r e s and they r e p r e s e n t the  160 T a b l e 18. D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s on c r i t e r i o n f o r model subgroups w i t h i n group D  variables  Group  Variable  Mean  SD  Range  4M n=29  CV1 CV2 CV3  7.57 6.58 0.16  1.96 2.03 0.08  4.79 - 11.12 4.02 - 11. 12 0.00 — 0.41  IM n=12  CV1 CV2 CV3  9.13 5.76 0.31  1. 68 1.48 0.13  7.56 — 13 . 00 4.10 - 8.35 0. 04 — 0.48  NM1 n=18  CV1 CV2 CV3  13 .35 7.26 0.30  5. 02 3 . 00 0.10  6. 54 — 30. 03 4.19 - 16.76 0. 10 - 0.40  NM2 n=18  CV1 CV2 CV3  11.54 6. 60 0.31  5.11 1.94 0.16  6.42 — 26.31 4.49 - 10. 08 0.11 - 0.58  161 mean time taken t o execute a component i n s o l v i n g the a n a l o g i e s . They a r e c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g each p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e i n the e q u a t i o n by i t s r e g r e s s i o n  coefficient.  The r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n f o r Model 4M i s : Y where Y  1  i s the  = bO + .67V2/V6 + 2.01V8  1  predicted  solution  time,  bO  i s the  regression  c o n s t a n t , V2/V6 r e p r e s e n t the time taken f o r a s i n g l e e x e c u t i o n of self-terminating  inference  application,  V8  and  confounded  represents  the  with  time  e x e c u t i o n o f s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g encoding  self-terminating  taken  for  a  single  (see T a b l e 11). For the 4M  subgroup w i t h i n Group D t h i s r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n becomes: Y A  single  component  1  = 3.08  + (.67)(1.80) +  (2.01)(1.63)  e x e c u t i o n o f the confounded  (V2/V6)  took  1.80  seconds  (see  inference/application Table  e x e c u t i o n o f the encoding component (V8) took 1.63 response component was  executed i n 3.08  Table  composite  19. As  Subgroup NM1,  IM was  regression  spent 1.21  seconds 3.08  seconds. Component  times f o r the o t h e r subgroups the group  single  seconds encoding, and  seconds responding, f o r a composite time o f 7.57 s c o r e s and  a  seconds, and the  seconds. T h i s  e q u a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t on average t h i s group p r o c e s s i n g i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n , 3.28  17),  are shown i n  model t h a t b e s t f i t the data f o r  t h i s has been used t o c a l c u l a t e component s c o r e s .  The composite s o l u t i o n times o b t a i n e d by summing the component times a r e the same as the observed s o l u t i o n times subgroups  except NM1  (CV1)  for a l l  (see T a b l e 19). The d i s c r e p a n c y between  162 T a b l e 19. Component l a t e n c i e s c a l c u l a t e d from preferred, r e g r e s s i o n models f o r subgroups w i t h i n Group D  Name o f Analogy  subgroup  4M  IM  NM1  NM2  4M  IM  IM  IM  3.28  NA  NA  NA  3 . 08  NA  NA  NA  1.21  NA  NA  NA  E x h a u s t i v e enc./resp.  NA  3.55  0. 00  8.76  Exhaustive  NA  5. 60  14 . 06  2.79  7.57  9 .15  14.06  Model used t o c a l c u l a t e component l a t e n c i e s Self-terminating  encoding  Response Self-terminating  inf./app.  inf./app.  Composite NA - not a p p l i c a b l e i n f . = inference app. = a p p l i c a t i o n enc. = encoding resp.= response  11. 55  163 observed and c a l c u l a t e d by  the  s o l u t i o n time f o r Subgroup NM1  encoding/response  coefficient  which  results  component's i n an  i s caused  negative  estimate of  regression  n e g a t i v e time.  To  b a l a n c e t h i s , the time p a r t i t i o n e d f o r e x e c u t i o n o f the e x h a u s t i v e i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n component i s l o n g e r than the mean observed time.  This  o v e r e s t i m a t e f o r the  inference/application  component  r e s u l t s from a poor model f i t t o the d a t a . I t was p r e v i o u s l y noted t h a t , i n d i v i d u a l l y , t h i s group d i d not seem t o p r o c e s s i n a s e r i a l f a s h i o n and  p r o b a b l y v i o l a t e d the l i n e a r combination r u l e .  In e s t i m a t i n g component times  f o r Subgroups 4M  and  IM,  the  model p r e f e r r e d by each subgroup was used. The amount o f time spent by Subgroup 4M  e x e c u t i n g the s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g encoding component  (3.28  was  seconds)  response more  component  than  almost equal t o the time spent e x e c u t i n g the (3.08  the  time  inference/application Subgroup  IM  spent  seconds) spent  component  less  and  time  approximately two  executing (see  Table  executing  the 19).  the  confounded In  contrast,  encoding/response  component (3.55 seconds) than e x e c u t i n g the i n f e r e n c e component  seconds  application  (5.60 seconds).  In e s t i m a t i n g component times f o r Subgroups NM1 r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n f o r Model IM was the model f o r Subgroup NM1  used. As s t a t e d  equated w i t h zero because  i s not p o s s i b l e . Comparison  the  previously,  o v e r e s t i m a t e d the time taken t o execute  the i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n component. A l s o , component was  and NM2,  the  encoding/response  n e g a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g time  o f component times f o r these two  164 subgroups  indicates  component  than  NM2  spent  confounded  longer  executing  the  inference/application,  encoding  whereas  the  r e v e r s e seemed t o be t r u e f o r Subgroup NM1. Although equated  encoding/response  w i t h zero, encoding  components o f Subgroup NM1  were  i s regarded as a mandatory p r o c e s s on  which analogy s o l u t i o n depends, t h e r e f o r e some time must have been spent on t h e p r o c e s s . However, because t h e r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was n e g a t i v e and not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, i t was not p o s s i b l e t o estimate NM2  subgroup  executing  appears  the  relatively  how much time was spent on t h i s p r o c e s s . The t o have  exhaustive  shorter  spent  a  relatively  encoding/response  time  executing  longer  component the  time  and  a  exhaustive  i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n component. These e s t i m a t e s should be regarded with  c a u t i o n as both  No Model  groups have poor model  appear t o have v i o l a t e d t h e l i n e a r a d d i t i v e  f i t s and  rule.  Summary o f Componential A n a l y s i s  Individual  analysis  o f CV1 data  f o r Group  D and Group N  i n d i c a t e d f o u r subgroups w i t h i n Group D. A t t h e i n d i v i d u a l members o f two subgroups showed p r e f e r e n c e  f o r Model  level,  4M and IM  r e s p e c t i v e l y w h i l e members o f t h e two remaining subgroups l a b e l l e d NM1  and NM2,  had no model p r e f e r e n c e . Members o f Subgroup  NM1  2 tended t o have l a r g e v a l u e s o f R , s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s o f F, and a l a r g e standard e r r o r o f estimate i n t h e i r r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s .  165 In  addition,  many  o f the s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  parameter  e s t i m a t e s were n e g a t i v e . Members o f Subgroup NM2 tended t o have low 2 values  . . .  o f R , no s i g n i f i c a n t  values  o f F, and few  significant  component e s t i m a t e s i n t h e i r r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s . When data were c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s s u b j e c t s , t h e p r e f e r r e d model f o r Subgroups 4M and IM c o n t i n u e d t o emerge. A weak Model IM emerged f o r Subgroups NM1 and  NM2. S i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s o f Group N i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o u r t e e n  members showed p r e f e r e n c e  f o r Model  Model IM and t h e remainder NM1  or  NM2.  When  4M,  resembled  t h e data  were  one had p r e f e r e n c e f o r  members o f e i t h e r collapsed  across  Subgroup subjects,  p r e f e r e n c e f o r Model 4M c o n t i n u e d t o emerge. Through disability  their  p r e f e r r e d models,  students  i n the reading  subgroups 4M and IM and t h e m a j o r i t y o f students i n  Group N i n d i c a t e d  t h a t they  had used  a l l Sternberg's t h e o r i z e d  components except mapping. The s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g mode was used by the m a j o r i t y o f students who showed p r e f e r e n c e f o r a model i n group D and Group N but t h e normal reader group had a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of  students p r e f e r r i n g t h i s mode o f p r o c e s s i n g . Subgroup 4M used  the l i n e a r combination IM  and Group  N.  r u l e and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t so d i d Subgroup  The poor  f i t o f the data  t o t h e models f o r  Subgroups NM1 and NM2 d i d not support use o f t h e l i n e a r  combination  r u l e by e i t h e r group. Examination  o f s o l u t i o n and component s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t  Subgroups 4M and IM spent l e s s time s o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s than  166 Subgroups NM1  and NM2.  Subgroup 4M  spent more time e x e c u t i n g the  encoding and response components than i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n whereas Subgroup  IM  had  the  shortest  s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d but  the poor  encoding/response  f o r Subgroups NM1  and NM2  time.  Component  u s i n g Model  f i t o f the data t o the model suggests t h a t  IM,  these  scores are i n v a l i d .  The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A n a l o g i c a l Reasoning and and Reading-Related  Reading  Skills  C l u s t e r Membership Versus Model Subgroup Membership  Cluster  membership  ( f o r Group  D)  was  compared  with  model  subgroup membership through the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a two way frequency table  (see T a b l e 20) . Members o f the  among the analogy groups to  clusters  were  distributed  i n v e r y s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n s which  i n d i c a t e t h a t f o r members o f Group D, t h e r e i s no  seems  relationship  between the p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s used t o s o l v e a n a l o g i e s and t h e i r r e a d i n g and r e a d i n g - r e l a t e d s k i l l s  A Comparison  The  (Question 8 ) .  o f R e a d i n g - D i s a b i l i t y Model Subgroups  distribution  of  scores  for  the  v a r i a b l e s f o r each of the Group D subgroups  reading  and  ability  formed on the b a s i s of  167 T a b l e 20. Frequency t a b l e between c l u s t e r s and analogy subgroups  Clusters  Analogy subgroups 4M  IM  NM1  NM2  Total  1  9  4  8  5  26  2  9  2  4  5  20  3  11  6  6  8  31  Total  29  12  18  18  77  168 their  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning  were examined u s i n g Tukey's Box-and-  Whisker P l o t s . The v a r i a b l e s were p l a c e d i n the same groups and i n the same o r d e r as they were f o r the r e a d i n g - d i s a b i l i t y As  before,  d i f f e r e n c e s between  subgroups were e v a l u a t e d  amount t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s overlapped. to  be  more d i f f e r e n t  between t h e i r boxes, above  or  below  than  alike  median  of  i f : (1)  the  by  the  Subgroups were c o n s i d e r e d there  (2) a l l the s c o r e s of one  the  clusters.  other,  and  was  no  overlap  distribution (3)  fell  neither  box  overlapped the median of the o t h e r . F i g u r e 13 shows the b o x - p l o t s Decoding  component.  distinguished  None  of  the  f o r the v a r i a b l e s of the SDRT analogy  subgroups  could  from the o t h e r s based upon the s t a t e d c r i t e r i a .  be It  was noted t h a t , f o r each of the f o u r v a r i a b l e s , Subgroup IM had the narrowest  range of s c o r e s f o r a l l but s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s i n v o l v i n g  s y l l a b i c a t i o n and all  but  Subgroup 4M had  structural  Subgroup 4M a n a l y s i s of  had  analysis involving  least v a r i a b i l i t y  range of s c o r e s f o r  blending.  Despite  of s c o r e s f o r a l l but  this,  phonetic  consonants.  There was  little  A u d i t o r y Vocabulary had  the widest  d i f f e r e n c e among the subgroups f o r the SDRT  v a r i a b l e (see F i g u r e 14). T h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s  the same median v a l u e ; the upper h a l f of the d i s t r i b u t i o n  of  Subgroup 4M extended h i g h e r than the o t h e r s . Subgroup 4M a l s o had the widest range of s c o r e s and Subgroup NM2 Subgroup NM2  the narrowest.  had the most v a r i a b i l i t y i n the s c o r e s and  However, Subgroup  169 Phonetic  Phonetic Analysi s (Vowels)  Analysi s (Consonants)  #  #  correct  correct  ± Model  Groups  Model  Structural  Groups  Structural Analysis (Blending)  Analysis (Syl1abication)  47  i  correct  # correct  8  JM  JfM Model  Figure  13.  iiMi  una.  Groups  Box-and-whisker- p l o t s f o r Group d e c o d i n g component variables  Model D model  Groups  subgroups  on  SDRT  17 0 Auditory Vocabulary  37  x correct  X  nr.  Model  Figure  14.  Groups  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r Group D model on SDRT V o c a b u l a r y c o m p o n e n t v a r i a b l e s  subgroups  171 NM1 had t h e l e a s t . There  was  considerable  overlap  between  t h e boxes  subgroup f o r t h e SDRT f a c t u a l comprehension v a r i a b l e  o f the  ( F i g u r e 15)  i n d i c a t i n g s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s . Here Subgroup 4M had the w i d e s t range o f s c o r e s and t h e l e a s t v a r i a b i l i t y .  Variability  was s i m i l a r  IM had the  f o r the other three  subgroups. Subgroup  narrowest range o f s c o r e s . A d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e emerged f o r t h e SDRT i n f e r e n t i a l comprehension v a r i a b l e . The boxes o f Subgroups 4M and NM1 d i d n o t o v e r l a p the medians o f e i t h e r . The i n d i c a t i o n was t h a t members o f Subgroup 4M tended t o comprehend members  o f Subgroup  NM1.  i n f e r e n c e b e t t e r than  There was g r e a t e r  variability  i n the  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f Subgroup IM than t h e o t h e r subgroups. The amount o f o v e r l a p f o r t h e SDRT Reading Rate v a r i a b l e s (see F i g u r e 16) i n d i c a t e d s i m i l a r i t y among t h e subgroups. Subgroup 4M had t h e widest range and most v a r i a b i l i t y NM1  had t h e narrowest range and l e a s t  responses.  Subgroups  NM1  and NM2  o f s c o r e s and Subgroup  variability  had the widest  f o r correct  and narrowest  ranges, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r T o t a l Responses. Subgroup 4M and NM1 had the most v a r i a b i l i t y the two v a r i a b l e s  and IM and NM2 had t h e l e a s t . Comparison o f  showed t h a t members o f Subgroup NM1 tended t o  make more comprehension e r r o r s when r e a d i n g a t speed. Subgroup IM d i f f e r e d from Subgroup 4M on t h e O r a l Reading Time variable not  (see F i g u r e 17) as t h e boxes o f t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n s d i d  overlap  t h e medians  of either.  On  t h e whole,  members o f  Subgroup 4M took l o n g e r t o read o r a l l y than members o f Subgroup IM.  172  Factual  Inferential. Comprehension  Comprehension  /5"  a*  6 a  #  # correct  correct  1. B ;M  JMI Model  Figure  15.  urn.  Groups  Model  Box-and-whisker  plots  on  Comprehension  SDRT  Reading  for  Group  Groups  D model  subgroups  component  variables  173  Total Responses  Correct Responses  3^  8  3»  #  r-  correct  T  # of responses  .1.. Model  Figure  16.  Groups  Box-and-whisker on SDRT R e a d i n g  Model  Groups  p l o t s f o r Group D model subgroups Rate component variables  174  Oral  Silent  R e a d i ng  Reading  Time  Time 6  a  S  T Time in seconds  Time i n seconds  B  *4 Model  Figure  17.  Groups  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r Group D model on D u r r e l l R e a d i n g Time v a r i a b l e s  Model  Groups  subgroups  175  Subgroup 4M a l s o had the widest range o f s c o r e s and Subgroup the  narrowest. However, Subgroup NM2  IM  had the most v a r i a b i l i t y i n  these s c o r e s and Subgroup IM had the l e a s t . There was no d i f f e r e n c e between the subgroups on the S i l e n t Reading V a r i a b l e . The  box-plots  presented Oral  f o r the D u r r e l l  i n F i g u r e 18. Subgroup NM1  Reading Comprehension  boxes  Comprehension  do  not  Subgroup NM1  overlap  variable  either  of  variables  tended t o do b e t t e r than  their  Subgroup  medians.  NM2 The  a l s o show more v a r i a b i l i t y although NM2  are  on the  as t h e i r scores  of  had one outer  low s c o r e and two extreme low s c o r e s whereas Subgroup NM1  only had  one extreme low s c o r e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f Subgroups IM and 4M are a l i k e and more s i m i l a r t o Subgroup NM2 The  subgroup  distributions  are  than NM1  similar  on  on t h i s v a r i a b l e .  the  Silent  Reading  Comprehension and L i s t e n i n g Comprehension v a r i a b l e s . The m a j o r i t y Repetition Applying  Errors  of members of each c l u s t e r made no Part-Word so t h e i r median v a l u e s were zero  the c r i t e r i a  f o r overlap  t o the e r r o r  (Figure  variables,  d i f f e r e n c e s between the subgroups emerged. Subgroup NM1 Whole-Word R e p e t i t i o n  few  made more  e r r o r s than Subgroup IM and more Whole-Word  Omission e r r o r s than Subgroup NM2. Addition  19).  e r r o r s than NM1.  Subgroup IM made more Whole-Word  Subgroup 4M e x h i b i t e d  the widest range  on a l l but Part-Word Omission and Part-Word S u b s t i t u t i o n and most variability  on  a l l except  Part-Word  Repetition  and  Part-Word  Omission. No one subgroup c o n s i s t e n t l y had the narrowest range or exhibited  the l e a s t v a r i a b i l i t y o v e r a l l .  176  Oral Reading Comprehension  13  I  'XI  1  1  # correct  Model  Si  1ent  Groups  Listening  Reading  Comprehension  Comprehension  i : -r #  #  correct  correct  L 13  o. JM  4« Model  Figure  18. -  M l Groups  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r Group D model on D u r r e l l C o m p r e h e n s i o n v a r i a b l e s  Model  Groups  subgroups  177  Part-word  Whole-word  Repetition  Repetition  Errors  Errors  3  B 8  8  8 B B #  of  3  8  errors  # of errors  BX BX  *rM  IM Model  Model  Groups  A/MI  I/MI  Groups  Whole-word Omi s s i o n Errors  Part-word Omi s s i o n Errors  3  % OK  T'  I #  B  of  #  errors  X  I  Model Figure  of  errors  19.  r .L  —r~ .1  Model  Groups  Box-and-whisker  plots  on  Reading  Durrell  Oral  for  Group  Error  D model  variables  Groups  subgroups  178 Part-word  Whole-word  Substitution  Substitution  Errors  Errors  II  8  8CL  #  of  #  .0  errors  i J  T  of  T  errors  ±  .  Model  Groups  Model  Part-word Addition  Whole-word Addition  Errors  Errors  Groups  8 8  # of errors  B  T  B  # of errors  /ri Model Figure  19  (cont.)  Groups  Model  Box-and-whisker  plots  on  Reading  Durrell  HM  Oral  for  Group  Error  D model  variables  tfm  AM*.  Groups subgroups  179 F i g u r e 2 0 i n d i c a t e s no d i f f e r e n c e among t h e subgroups on T o t a l Errors,  Self-Corrected  Errors.  However,  Errors,  and P r o p o r t i o n  the i n d i c a t i o n  i n Figure  of  Self-Corrected  19 t h a t  Subgroup  4M  e x h i b i t e d t h e widest range and most v a r i a b i l i t y on t h e m a j o r i t y o f error  variables  Errors  was borne out by i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n on t h e T o t a l  variable.  The b o x - p l o t s o f t h e a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s 21. The box o f Subgroup 4M does not o v e r l a p  a r e shown i n F i g u r e t h e medians o f any of  the o t h e r subgroups f o r e i t h e r o f t h e a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s . T h i s means that PPVT  the majority scores  than  o f members o f Subgroup 4M had h i g h e r CCAT and members  of  the other  three  subgroups. The  subgroups had s i m i l a r v a r i a b i l i t y f o r t h e i r CCAT d i s t r i b u t i o n s but Subgroup  NM1  had g r e a t e r  variability  i n PPVT  scores  than the  others.  Summary o f Model Subgroups  Few d i f f e r e n c e s were observed among t h e subgroups. On t h e SDRT Inferential  Comprehension s u b t e s t  Subgroup 4M scored h i g h e r than  Subgroup NM1 b u t no h i g h e r than Subgroups IM o r NM2. Members o f Subgroup 4M were slower o r a l readers than Subgroup IM. Members o f t h i s subgroup made more whole-word a d d i t i o n e r r o r s but fewer wholeword r e p e t i t i o n e r r o r s  than members o f Subgroup NM1. Members o f  Subgroup NM2 made fewer whole-word omission e r r o r s and were b e t t e r comprehenders o f o r a l r e a d i n g than members o f Subgroup NM1. The  180  Total Errors  5*3  #  of  errors  r Model  Self-  Proportion SelfCorrected Errors  Corrected Errors  IS  Groups  B  5$  6  3 #  self-  corrected  1 Model Figure  20.  id B B  T  B  Percent  .1  J .  Groups  Model  Groups  B o x - a n d - w h i s k e r p l o t s f o r G r o u p D model s u b g r o u p s on D u r r e l l Oral Reading Error v a r i a b l e s : Total Errors, Total Self-Corrected Errors, and P r o p o r t i o n SelfCorrected Errors.  181  PPVT  CCAT  njf.  in  G  <v  I  Universal Age Score  I  T  .1  Scaled Score  )5p  ox  T.  So  6s* ftt\l  1H Model  Figure '  21. ~  Groups  Box-and-whisker p l o t s f o r Group on V e r b a l a n d N o n v e r b a l Ability  Model  Groups  D model subgroups variables  tJ^-u  182 omission  o f words  passage  being  could  read  and  interfere may  with  have  t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f the  contributed  to  the  lower  comprehension s c o r e s o f Subgroup NM1. O v e r a l l , Subgroup 4M tended t o have t h e widest range and most variability  i n o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s and SDRT Reading Rate s c o r e s .  However, Subgroup 4M a l s o had t h e l e a s t v a r i a b i l i t y  i n t h e SDRT  Decoding V a r i a b l e s . Members o f Subgroup 4M were slower o r a l readers than members o f Subgroup IM who tended t o have t h e narrowest  range  of s c o r e s f o r t h e decoding and comprehension v a r i a b l e s . Members of Subgroup 4M had h i g h e r nonverbal and v e r b a l a b i l i t y than the other subgroups but g e n e r a l l y d i d not perform  any b e t t e r than t h e other  subgroups on t h e r e a d i n g t e s t s .  C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Analogy Data and Reading Data  In a study  t h a t used the People  Piece Analogies,  Sternberg  (1977) found t h a t s o l u t i o n s c o r e s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s e v e r a l r e f e r e n c e ability the  s c o r e s . In t h e c u r r e n t study two measures o f a b i l i t y and  various  dependent componential  reading  or  v a r i a b l e s were  criterion  variable  analysis part of t h i s  the reference of  study  most  scores.  interest  The  i n the  i s Criterion Variable 1  (CV1). T h i s v a r i a b l e r e f l e c t s q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y o f performance i n s o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s . Each student had twenty-four  s c o r e s f o r CV1;  one  f o r each b o o k l e t . A s i n g l e mean s o l u t i o n s c o r e was c a l c u l a t e d  for  each student and c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e r e a d i n g and a b i l i t y  183 v a r i a b l e s f o r Group N and each of the f o u r subgroups, 4M, and NM2,  IM,  NM1,  w i t h i n Group D.  In p r e s e n t i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s , r e a d i n g and r e a d i n g related  variables  contained:  were  (1) the two  arranged  into  s i x groups.  a b i l i t y variables  These  groups  r e p r e s e n t e d by the CCAT  and the PPVT, (2) the f o u r s u b t e s t s i n the SDRT Decoding component, (3)  the  two  SDRT Reading  r e a d i n g time,  Rate  variables,  (4)  oral  and  silent  (5) the SDRT and D u r r e l l comprehension measures, and  (6) the o r a l r e a d i n g e r r o r s . C o r r e l a t i o n s between s o l u t i o n scores (CV1) 4M,  and r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s f o r Group N and  IM, NM1,  and NM2  are shown i n Table  Subgroups  21.  C o r r e l a t i o n s W i t h i n Group N  It observed  was  predicted that,  s o l u t i o n scores  f o r Group  (CV1)  N,  correlations  between  and time and e r r o r s c o r e s would be  p o s i t i v e and t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n s between observed s o l u t i o n s c o r e s and ability  and  (Hypothesis  accuracy 9.1).  scores  correlations  would  be  negative  In o t h e r words, the more p r o f i c i e n t a n a l o g i c a l  reasoners would read f a s t e r , make fewer e r r o r s , have h i g h e r a b i l i t y s c o r e s and d i s p l a y g r e a t e r accuracy i n decoding and comprehending. The either  solution of  the  scores  ability  did  tests.  not  correlate  However,  significantly  there  with  were s i g n i f i c a n t  n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s with two of the SDRT Decoding v a r i a b l e s Consonant, SA-Blending), two SDRT Reading Rate v a r i a b l e s  (PA-  (Accuracy,  184 T a b l e 21. C o r r e l a t i o n of observed s o l u t i o n times (CV1) w i t h a b i l i t y , r e a d i n g , and r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s Variable  CV1  Groups  N  4M  IM  NM1  NM2  .00 .03  -.15 .30  -.03 .46  -.19 .10  -.15 .21  Decoding t e s t s (SDRT) PA (consonants) PA (vowels) SA ( s y l l a b l e s ) SA (blending)  -.47* -.24 -.24 -.49*  .09 -.03 -.11 . 08  -.29 -.42 .31 -.55*  -.27 -.12 . 08 -.32  -.08 -.15 -.33 .04  Reading Rate Accuracy Speed  -.55* -.50*  -.19 -.21  -.44 .21  . 02 . 02  -.45 -.44  .21 .22  .23 . 18  . 01 . 11  -.16 . 08  . 10 -.49* -.37  -.06 -.27 . 24  .27 .04 .04  Ability CCAT PPVT  tests  (SDRT)  Reading Time ( D u r r e l l ) O r a l Reading time S i l e n t Reading time  .66** .64**  Comprehension (SDRT) Auditory vocabulary F a c t u a l comprehension I n f e r e n t i a l comprehension  -.01 -.58** -.50*  Comprehension ( D u r r e l l ) Oral reading S i l e n t Reading Listening Recall  -.02 .16 -.07  . 11 -.01 . 07  -.37 -.10 . 35  . 08 -.36 -.04  -.54 -.08 . 10  O r a l Reading e r r o r s ( D u r r e l l ) Part-word r e p e t i t i o n Whole-word r e p e t i t i o n Part-word o m i s s i o n Whole-word o m i s s i o n Part-word s u b s t i t u t i o n Whole-word s u b s t i t u t i o n Part-word a d d i t i o n Whole-word a d d i t i o n Self-corrected errors  -.05 .12 -.06 .23 .01 .23 .09 .36 -.00  .20 . 04 . 04 -.15 . 19 -.03 -.17 . 28 .31*  -.06 .27 .34 . 18 .29 . 03 .27 .25 . 13  .24 -.21 . 09 . 01 -.17 -.01 . 13 -.08 .21  -.11 -.18 .20 -.10 -.05 . 01 -.10 . 37 . 02  * = p<.05 **= p<.01  . 34* . 00 . 05  185 Speed) and two SDRT Comprehension v a r i a b l e s These n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s were  the fastest,  decoders  most  and b e t t e r  material.  indicated  accurate  comprehenders  In addition,  (Factual, I n f e r e n t i a l ) .  that,  analogy  generally, solvers  of d i f f i c u l t  those who  were  as w e l l  significant positive correlations  s o l u t i o n s c o r e s and D u r r e l l Reading Time v a r i a b l e s  better as easy between  (Oral,  Silent)  showed t h a t on t h e whole, t h e f a s t e r problem s o l v e r s were a l s o t h e f a s t e r r e a d e r s . T h e r e f o r e , Hypothesis 9.1 cannot be r e j e c t e d . Lack o f s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between s o l u t i o n time and t h e Durrell  comprehension  measures  may  have  occurred  ceiling  e f f e c t f o r t h i s group. There was no c o r r e l a t i o n between  s o l u t i o n time and any o f t h e D u r r e l l O r a l  reading Errors  t h e r e was l i t t l e v a r i a n c e i n t h i s group's e r r o r  Correlations  because  of a  because  scores.  W i t h i n t h e Model Subgroups  Compared t o group N, the model subgroups had fewer s i g n i f i c a n t correlations (Question  between  solution  9) . Subgroup  NM2  scores  had t h r e e  and t h e r e a d i n g significant  measure  correlations;  Subgroups 4M and IM each had two; and Subgroup NM1 had none. The c o r r e l a t i o n s seem t o imply t h a t those who were more p r o f i c i e n t i n analogical  reasoning  proportion  of Durrell  i n Subgroup oral  A u d i t o r y Vocabulary s c o r e s ;  4M  Reading those  self-corrected  Errors  a  and had lower  lower SDRT  i n Subgroup IM tended t o have  h i g h e r s c o r e s f o r t h e decoding v a r i a b l e , SA-Blending and were more  186 a c c u r a t e f a c t u a l comprehenders; and those i n Subgroup NM2 were more accurate  in  comprehension  oral and  However, these  reading speed  results  measure s i m i l a r  skills  comprehension  when the  m a t e r i a l was  show l i t t l e and  may  and  be  the  better  relatively  consistency  simply  did  easy.  among t e s t s  result  of  in  that  sampling  variability.  Summary  Among a sample of 77 d i s a b l e d readers, identified  through  v a r i a b l e s . Although of  the  cluster  analysis using  three  subtypes were  reading  and  related  the subgroups c o u l d be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on many  variables a  great  deal  of  overlap  e x i s t e d between  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the groups. Componential a n a l y s i s of a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g data a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l made i t p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y the  processes  and  s t r a t e g i e s used  by  some  of  the  normal  and  d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . Four subgroups were formed by grouping d i s a b l e d readers who  i n d i c a t e d s i m i l a r component and s t r a t e g y use i n s o l v i n g  a n a l o g i e s . A comparison of d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s ' s t r a t e g i e s w i t h  those  used by normal readers i n d i c a t e d t h a t the m a j o r i t y s o l v e d a n a l o g i e s in  a  different  way.  membership w i t h analogy existed. normal  Furthermore,  readers  there  Comparison  of  reading  disability  subgroup membership showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p correlational is a  analysis indicated that  relationship  between  found  for  p r o f i c i e n c y of  a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g and speed and accuracy i n r e a d i n g . No r e l a t i o n s h i p was  cluster  f o r subgroups of d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s .  similar  187 CHAPTER V I : DISCUSSION  Reading  Initially,  t h e purpose  c o g n i t i v e processes  Typology  of t h i s  study  and s t r a t e g i e s used  was  t o e x p l o r e the  by subtypes  of disabled  r e a d e r s i n an a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g t a s k and t o compare these with the p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s used by a group o f normal r e a d e r s . The first  questions  asked  in this  c l e a r l y d i s c e r n a b l e subtypes  study  concerned  t h e presence  of  of d i s a b l e d readers i n a n o n c l i n i c a l  sample. Methods o f s u b t y p i n g i n v o l v e d t h e Boder T e s t o f ReadingSpelling  Patterns - a c l i n i c a l  method; and c l u s t e r  analysis  - a  s t a t i s t i c a l method. The Boder t e s t f a i l e d t o p l a c e t h e d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s i n t o any of t h e t h r e e s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes s p e c i f i e d by the method. However, the s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s of these subtypes were found among some members o f t h e r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d group s u g g e s t i n g t h a t m i l d e r forms o f t h e subtypes e x i s t . Others were s i m i l a r t o Boder's nonspecific reading d i s a b i l i t y  subtype.  U s i n g a h i e r a r c h i c a l agglomerative technique employing  Ward's  a l g o r i t h m f o r minimum v a r i a n c e w i t h data o b t a i n e d from t h e r e a d i n g variables,  the  distinguishable subtypes  normal from  reader  group  t h e d i s a b l e d readers  were i d e n t i f i e d  (N=20) group  was  clearly  (N=77).  Three  among the r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s . As  i n o t h e r s u b t y p i n g s t u d i e s , t h r e e c l u s t e r s o f students w i t h i n Group  188 D were  described  i n terms  of the v a r i a b l e s that  were  used t o  d i s t i n g u i s h them. To some extent, the members o f a l l t h r e e c l u s t e r s had poor decoding s k i l l s , were slow r e a d e r s , made many o r a l r e a d i n g errors,  and even  when t h e m a t e r i a l  was easy,  used  inefficient  r e a d i n g s t r a t e g i e s . These c l u s t e r s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e degree to  which  they  considerable empirical  deficient  overlap  studies  characteristics Short,  were  between  have  (e.g.  on  these  them.  produced  This  variables.  There  was  i s n o t unique.  subtypes  that  have  Most shared  Lyon, Stewart, & Freedman, 1982; McKinney,  & Feagans, 1985; Speece, Mckinney, & Appelbaum, 1985).  As d i s c u s s e d i n a review research  has r a i s e d  of the l i t e r a t u r e , reading  quite s u b s t a n t i a l methodological  typology  i s s u e s . In  seeking t o discover i n t r i n s i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading s k i l l s  as a  source o f r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y t h i s study has been as s u c c e s s f u l as other  methods.  similarities measured  Students  i n reading  i n school  were  placed  and r e l a t e d  i n clusters skills  that  s e t t i n g s . However, i n s e e k i n g  cause o f each c l u s t e r ' s predominating  deficit,  more s u c c e s s f u l than any other used i n subtyping  according  to  are t y p i c a l l y the underlying  t h e method was no research.  Componential A n a l y s i s  Componential differences readers  analysis  was  used  i n information processing  to  determine  individual  among t h e group o f normal  (Group N) and t h e group o f d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s  (Group D).  189 S p e c i f i c a l l y , q u e s t i o n s were asked as t o which components would be used by d i s a b l e d and normal readers i n s o l v i n g schematic a n a l o g i e s , which s t r a t e g y would they p r e f e r , they  would  adhere  t o the l i n e a r  q u e s t i o n s concerned disabled  sample  strategies,  picture  and t o what  combination  rule.  extent  Additional  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f subgroups w i t h i n t h e r e a d i n g  based  upon  individual  and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p  use o f components and  between  membership  i n these  subgroups and membership i n t h e t h r e e c l u s t e r s .  R e g r e s s i o n Models: Components and S t r a t e g i e s  At t h e group l e v e l , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t study some o f t h e f i n d i n g s  of previous  1982;  Rifkin,  Sternberg  &  research  1979;  (Sternberg  Wilson,  support  & Ketron,  1980).  However,  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a r e made w i t h c a u t i o n as t h e sample used  i n the  p r e s e n t study d i f f e r e d from t h e samples used i n o t h e r s t u d i e s . In the  s t u d i e s o f Sternberg  and R i f k i n  (1979)  and Wilson  (198 0) ,  groups were formed on t h e b a s i s o f age o r a b i l i t y and componential a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d out and r e p o r t e d a t t h e group l e v e l . T h e r e f o r e comparisons w i t h p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h a r e made a t t h e group r a t h e r than  the individual  level.  F o r some groups,  this  study  revealed  i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s between a n a l y s e s a t t h e group and i n d i v i d u a l  level  t h a t a l l o w s p e c u l a t i o n s t o be made r e g a r d i n g p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . The  s t u d i e s o f S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n  (1979) and Wilson  (1980)  had shown, a t t h e group l e v e l , t h a t t h e p r e f e r r e d model used i n  190 s o l v i n g s e p a r a b l e - a t t r i b u t e a n a l o g i e s was g e n e r a l l y a m o d i f i e d mapping component), s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g one  (Model 4M)  p r e f e r e n c e became more c o n s i s t e n t through and  increased with  group  (Wilson,  level  1980)  of  ability.  d i d not  Wilson's  show p r e f e r e n c e  adulthood  low  ability  f o r Model  m a r g i n a l l y p r e f e r r e d a m o d i f i e d exhaustive model In  and t h a t t h i s  childhood to  Only  (no  4M  but  (IM).  the p r e s e n t study, a n a l y s i s a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l showed  t h a t , w i t h i n Group N (n=20), 14 members p r e f e r r e d Model 4M and  one  member p r e f e r r e d Model IM. The remainder of the group i n d i c a t e d no preference  for  any  of  the  theoretical  (n=77), 29 members p r e f e r r e d Model 4M, 36 indicated  no  model p r e f e r e n c e .  models.  (No  Model  1) , c o n s i s t e d of  Within  18  l e v e l s o f r e g r e s s i o n F but v e r y bad The  this  group of  group, l a b e l l e d  students  who  had  36,  D and two  Subgroup  significant  f i t of t h e i r data t o a model.  o t h e r group, l a b e l l e d Subgroup NM2  18 students who  group  12 p r e f e r r e d Model IM,  separate groups c o u l d be d i s c e r n e d . One NM1  Within  (No Model 2) c o n s i s t e d of  had no l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e i r r e g r e s s i o n  equations. Subgroups were formed w i t h i n Group D, based upon model p r e f e r e n c e . The  individual  data were then c o l l a p s e d a c r o s s groups  and  group r e g r e s s i o n equations obtained. The p r e f e r r e d group models f o r Subgroups  4M  and  IM  were  stronger  than  any  of  their preferred  models a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l . T h e i r r e g r e s s i o n equations showed that  they  appeared  t o have used  the  processes as Sternberg and R i f k i n ' s  same t h e o r e t i c a l  (1979) and Wilson's  component (1980)  191 groups and t o have adhered t o the l i n e a r combination r u l e , although Subgroup 4M had the s t r o n g e r model. The model t h a t b e s t f i t  the data f o r Subgroup NM1 resembled  the e x h a u s t i v e Model IM but had a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t encoding/response component. The p r e f e r r e d model f o r Subgroup NM2  was c l e a r l y Model  2 IM but the v a l u e o f R 20  percent  individual  of v a r i a b i l i t y level  group l e v e l  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the model accounted f o r only i n the d a t a .  Data  d i d not support the r e s u l t s  analysis  a t the  o f a n a l y s i s a t the  f o r these two subgroups. T h e i r i n d i v i d u a l  regression  equations were unable t o show which o f the t h e o r e t i c a l  components  were  used  and  suggested  that  the  linear  combination  rule  was  probably v i o l a t e d . The p r e f e r r e d model o f Group N was Model 4M even though s i x members o f Group N d i d not i n d i c a t e p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h i s model at the  individual  level.  Group  N  most  resembled Wilson's  Average  A b i l i t y group which c o n s i s t e d of 20 average a c h i e v i n g s t u d e n t s . In f a c t , t h e i r group r e g r e s s i o n equations were v e r y s i m i l a r . Both had significant  regression  terminating nonsignificant encoding  coefficients  (p<.05)  inference/application regression  component.  They  S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s  components  coefficients had  lower  for  f o r the  values  the  and  selfsmall,  self-terminating 2  for R  (1979) groups o r o f Wilson's  than  any  of  (1980) High  A b i l i t y group. These r e g r e s s i o n equation s i m i l a r i t i e s suggest t h a t Wilson's average group may a l s o have c o n t a i n e d s t u d e n t s who d i d not p r e f e r Model 4M. T h i s c o u l d have caused the r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t o  192 2 have lower v a l u e s o f R and r e g r e s s i o n F and t h e encoding component t o have a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t r e g r e s s i o n  coefficient.  The group r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n o f Subgroup 4M w i t h i n Group D was s i m i l a r t o S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s Grade 4 and A d u l t samples and s i m i l a r t o , but s t r o n g e r than, Wilson's h i g h a c h i e v i n g group and Sternberg ability  and R i f k i n ' s  Grade 2 and Grade  o f Wilson's group suggests t h a t  6 samples. The h i g h e r they  should  have had a  s t r o n g e r model. One e x p l a n a t i o n may be t h a t Wilson's h i g h a c h i e v i n g group and S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s Grade 1 and 6 samples c o n t a i n e d members who, a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l , used a model o t h e r than 4M. The o t h e r Subgroups IM, NM1, f o r Model  IM a t t h e group l e v e l ,  and NM2  a l l showed  although NM1  and NM2  preference had weak  models. As Subgroup IM was made up o f students who had a l l shown p r e f e r e n c e f o r Model IM a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l , was  n a t u r a l l y ' stronger.  group,  who  also  showed  The members preference  t h e group model  o f Wilson's low a c h i e v i n g f o r Model  IM,  had a  group  r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t h a t , i n comparison, was much weaker than t h a t of Subgroup IM. Both groups had s i g n i f i c a n t r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for  t h e confounded  inference/application  and encoding/response  components but, compared t o Wilson's low group, Subgroup IM had a 2 higher R  and r e g r e s s i o n F.  In f a c t , t h e r e g r e s s i o n equation o f Wilson's low a b i l i t y group bore more resemblance t o t h a t significant  o f Subgroup NM2.  Subgroup NM2 had  regression coefficients f o r t h e two confounded 2 components but an R t h a t accounted f o r o n l y 20 p e r c e n t o f the  193 variability significant individual  in  scores  and  a  a t p<.01. T h i s group  small was  regression made up  F  which  was  of s t u d e n t s whose  r e g r e s s i o n equations, f o r most of the models, had  few  s i g n i f i c a n t r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , and no s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s of r e g r e s s i o n F even a t p<.10  level  of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  This  suggests  t h a t , where p r e f e r e n c e f o r a model i s marginal a t the group the members may individual  not  indicate  a p r e f e r e n c e f o r any  level,  model a t the  level.  Component Scores  C a l c u l a t i o n of component s c o r e s f o r r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d subgroups i n d i c a t e d t h a t Subgroup 4M spent more time e x e c u t i n g the encoding component than the i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n component. T h i s supports the S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s (1979) f o r a l l age l e v e l s , except Grade 4, and Wilson's  (1980) h i g h a b i l i t y group.  Subgroup 4M a l s o  took  l o n g e r t o execute the s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g encoding component than the response component. T h i s a l s o f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n f o r S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s Grade 2, Grade 64, and A d u l t groups, - t h e i r Grade 4 group and a l l of Wilson's groups had response time t h a t was  l o n g e r than  encoding time. Sternberg (1977) showed t h a t more s u c c e s s f u l  adult  reasoners took l o n g e r t o encode s t i m u l i than u n s u c c e s s f u l ones and suggested t h a t t h e r e was a t r a d e - o f f between encoding speed and the speed of p e r f o r m i n g l a t e r o p e r a t i o n s . The p a t t e r n of component times f o r Subgroup IM cannot  be  194 compared d i r e c t l y w i t h any o f S t e r n b e r g and R i f k i n ' s o r Wilson's groups  as t h e component s c o r e s f o r t h e i r  groups  were  calculated  u s i n g t h e i r Model 4M r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s . A l s o i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e to  say e x a c t l y  how  much  time  Subgroup  IM spent  e x e c u t i n g the  encoding component as i t i s confounded w i t h t h e response component i n Model IM. Subgroup IM must have spent l e s s time e x e c u t i n g the encoding component than t h e i n f e r e n c e / a p p l i c a t i o n component as the encoding time confounded w i t h response time was l e s s than t h e time taken t o execute t h e i n f e r e n c e a p p l i c a t i o n component. Thus members of t h i s subgroup d i d not use t h e t r a d e - o f f between encoding and  t h e speed  might  have  o f performing l a t e r  discovered that  they  speed  o p e r a t i o n s . I f they had, they d i d not need  t o p r o c e s s the  components e x h a u s t i v e l y .  The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between A n a l o g i c a l Reasoning  Members adequate  o f Group  verbal  N were  and nonverbal  average ability.  t o good  readers  and had  Seventy  percent  o f them  showed p r e f e r e n c e f o r a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g schematic level  picture  also  consistent Sternberg  strategy  t o s o l v e the  a n a l o g i e s . T h e i r p r e f e r r e d model a t t h e group  indicated with  and Reading  a  previous  & Ketron,  self-terminating research  1982; Wilson,  strategy  (Sternberg 1980).  &  which  Rifkin,  In c o n t r a s t ,  is  1979;  o n l y 38  p e r c e n t o f t h e members o f Group D showed p r e f e r e n c e f o r a s e l f t e r m i n a t i n g s t r a t e g y and j u s t under h a l f  (47%) d i d n o t use any o f  195 the t h e o r e t i c a l models t o s o l v e the schematic p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s . This  suggested  that  something  in  the  nature  of  their  reading  d i s a b i l i t y might be r e s p o n s i b l e . Examination of the frequency t a b l e between c l u s t e r s and there  was  no  analogy subgroups  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  (Table 19)  membership  indicated that in  the  reading  c l u s t e r s and the analogy subgroups. Box-and Whisker p l o t s i n d i c a t e d few subgroups  on  the  reading  and  d i f f e r e n c e s between the  related  variables.  In  general,  Subgroup 4M had the widest range of scores and Subgroup IM had narrowest,  demonstrating  homogenous than 4M.  that  Only one  Subgroup  t r e n d was  IM  was  probably  c o n s i s t e n t with  r e s e a r c h ; i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t those students who  the more  previous  showed a p r e f e r e n c e  f o r Model 4M tended t o have h i g h e r v e r b a l and nonverbal  ability  as  measured by the PPVT and CCAT. T h i s suggests t h a t Subgroup 4M were the  more  ability,  reading-disabled  subgroup  for,  they d i d not have b e t t e r r e a d i n g  Although  the  significantly  s o l u t i o n scores  with  ability  of  scores,  despite  their  higher  skills.  Group N  d i d not  correlational  correlate  analysis  of  s o l u t i o n s c o r e s w i t h r e a d i n g v a r i a b l e s produced s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s which were g e n e r a l l y i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n . o t h e r words, those analogies  were  decoding s k i l l s , relationship  was  i n Group N who  generally speed of clearly  d i s a b l e d subgroups.  more  In  were more p r o f i c i e n t a t s o l v i n g proficient  reading  and  discernable  readers  in  comprehension. for  any  of  terms  of  Indeed,  no  the  reading-  196 Factors Underlying Strategy  Sternberg  and  Choice  Ketron  (1982)  were  unsuccessful  in  their  attempts t o t r a i n u n i v e r s i t y students t o use a s t r a t e g y other  than  a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g one. They a t t r i b u t e d t h i s s t r o n g compulsion t o the e f f i c a c y and e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e s t r a t e g y i n terms o f speed and accuracy, ease o f use and maintenance, and s m a l l e r memory l o a d . Yet 12 students  who made up Subgroup IM chose t o use an  s t r a t e g y t h a t was l e s s e f f i c i e n t than 36 students r e j e c t e d a l l Sternberg's  exhaustive  a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g one and (1977) t h e o r e t i c a l models i n  favour o f some other, l e s s a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y . The p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t s t r a t e g y use i s d i r e c t l y to  intellectual  nonverbal  ability.  Subgroup  4M  had  higher  related  verbal  and  s c o r e s than the other t h r e e subgroups b u t members o f the  o t h e r t h r e e subgroups a l s o had s c o r e s t h a t were above t h e PPVT and CCAT means o f 100, as d i d some o f those members o f Group N who d i d not  appear  intellectual raises  t o choose  a model.  ability  as the o n l y  the p o s s i b i l i t y  that  a  This  would  factor factor  appear  t o r u l e out  i n s t r a t e g y c h o i c e and other  than  intellectual  a b i l i t y was a l s o i n v o l v e d . What Subgroups IM, NM1, and NM2, low  ability  group  have  i n common  as w e l l as Wilson's  i s low achievement.  (1980)  Wilson's  a b i l i t y groups were chosen a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r achievement l e v e l s , on  t h e assumption  that  achievement  indicates a b i l i t y .  achievement o f l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d students  The low  i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , not  197 i n d i c a t i v e o f low i n t e l l i g e n c e and Wilson's low a b i l i t y sample may have  contained  some  students  with  higher  ability  than  their  achievement l e v e l s would suggest. I t may be t h a t t h e r e a r e f a c t o r s a t work which i n t e r a c t w i t h a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e not o n l y academic achievement b u t t h e extent t o which s t r a t e g y c h o i c e i s e f f i c i e n t and a p p r o p r i a t e . I t may be t h a t f o r Group D t h e f a c t o r o r f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g s t r a t e g y c h o i c e were r e l a t e d  i n some way t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  e x h i b i t e d by d i s a b l e d readers t h a t were not d i r e c t l y measured i n this  study,  addition,  such  as  short-term  the factors  personality  may  memory  or  metacognition.  In  be i n f l u e n c e d by m o t i v a t i o n a l and/or  characteristics.  M e t a c o g n i t i o n i s regarded as a c o n s c i o u s p l a n f u l , e v a l u a t i v e , decision-making 1978) .  The  process  students  (Anderson, in  this  1975; Brown,  study  1980;  appeared  to  Flavell,  be  using  m e t a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n s o l v i n g a n a l o g i e s as a l l o f them were eager  t o share t h e i r  encouraged suggests  t o wait  t h a t many  strategies,  but  inappropriate.  s t r a t e g i e s w i t h t h e examiner and had t o be until  o f t h e students  that  Nor  the t e s t i n g  their  does  s e s s i o n s were  d i d not l a c k  strategies  lack  of  were  motivation  over.  This  metacognitive  inefficient appear  to  and have  i n f l u e n c e d s t r a t e g y c h o i c e as t h e examiner noted t h a t a l l students were i n t e r e s t e d and e n t h u s i a s t i c i n t h e i r approach t o t h e a n a l o g i e s test. K o l l i g i a n and Sternberg  (1987) suggested  a l i n k might e x i s t  198 between giving  inefficient  strategy  use and i n f l e x i b l e  as an example the i n e f f i c i e n t  response  style,  use o f speed. Subgroup IM,  whose members chose a l e s s e f f i c i e n t s t r a t e g y which r e q u i r e d more p r o c e s s i n g than a s e l f - t e r m i n a t i n g one, n e v e r t h e l e s s analogies  completed the  i n t h e s h o r t e s t time. They had t w i c e t h e e r r o r r a t e o f  Subgroup 4M and appeared t o have s a c r i f i c e d  accuracy  f o r speed.  2. Wilson  (1980) had a l s o suggested t h a t a low R  i n the regression  e q u a t i o n might be caused by a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e l i n e a r a d d i t i v e r u l e or by a m i s s i n g component such as response speed. She reasoned t h a t the e r r o r s i n h e r normal and low a b i l i t y group might be caused by impulsive  responding i n which accuracy was s a c r i f i c e d f o r speed.  R e s t r i c t i o n s o f working memory have been i m p l i c a t e d i n r e a d i n g disabilities use most  (Jorm, 1983; Torgesen, 1977) and i n e f f i c i e n t  strategy  ( K o l l i g i a n & Sternberg, 1987). Members o f Subgroup NM1 took the time  t o solve  analogies  and had t h e same  error  rate  as  Subgroups IM and NM2. I n d i v i d u a l a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t members of t h i s fashion.  group had probably not processed components i n a s e r i a l I t i s possible  that  members  of t h i s  group  may  have  attempted t o use an e x h a u s t i v e s t r a t e g y and found t h a t , because o f d e f i c i e n t working memory, t h i s s t r a t e g y c o u l d not be maintained f o r the  more d i f f i c u l t  analogies.  They may have then  resorted  to a  h o l i s t i c s t r a t e g y t h a t caused them t o take l o n g e r than t h e other groups and make more e r r o r s . In  his triarch  theory  of  intelligence,  Sternberg  (1987)  t h e o r i z e d t h a t s t r a t e g i e s a r e under t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e e x e c u t i v e  199 or  metacomponents.  suggested  However,  Kolligian  and  Sternberg  (1987)  t h a t , where d e f i c i e n t working memory i s unable t o h o l d  metacomponential i n f o r m a t i o n , i n e f f i c i e n t or incomplete s t r a t e g i e s are  used.  It  is  therefore  possible  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of members of Subgroup NM1  to may  speculate  that  one  have been a d e f i c i t  i n working memory t h a t allowed i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s t o be used. There appears t o have been no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of p r o c e s s i n g time  taken  r e q u i r e d i n the  by  Subgroup  NM2.  solution  of the  Although  analogies  members  of  and  this  the  group  completed the t o t a l number of a n a l o g i e s a t the same r a t e as Group 4M,  they  strategy  made t w i c e might  accuracy was  be  as  many  errors. This  associated with  suggests  impulsive  that  reasoning  their  i n which  s a c r i f i c e d f o r speed, or i t might be a s s o c i a t e d with  some o t h e r f a c t o r such as  guessing.  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study  The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study concern the extent t o which the r e s u l t s can be  compared with p r e v i o u s  research or generalized to  o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s . C o m p a r a b i l i t y and g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y depend upon the nature of the sample and the methodology employed. The of r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d students the  clinical  a l . , 1981;  samples used by  used i n t h i s study d i d not many r e s e a r c h e r s  sample  resemble  (e.g. Doehring  et  Petruskas & Rourke, 1979), the s c h o o l - i d e n t i f i e d samples  of the l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s (e.g., Lyon & Watson, 1981;  Mckinney,  200 1984), o r students from h i g h SES neighbourhoods w i t h IQ s c o r e s o f 90 and above (e.g., V e l l u t i n o , d i s a b l e d students their  reading  educational  1979, 1980). Some o f t h e r e a d i n g -  i n Group D resembled c l i n i c a l  difficulties  programs  had  modified.  been  The  subjects i n that  recognized  remainder  and  were  their  receiving  i n s t r u c t i o n i n t h e r e g u l a r program; some were r e c o g n i z e d by t h e i r t e a c h e r s as a c h i e v i n g below t h e l e v e l o f t h e i r p e e r s ; o t h e r s were not. The  sample d i d not c o n t a i n a l l p o s s i b l e c l i n i c a l  below-average students  readers  d i d not take  e i t h e r through  i n the Grade part  5 population  subjects or  because  some  i n t h e s c r e e n i n g phase o f t h e study  absence, f a i l u r e t o complete t h e t e s t s , o r l a c k o f  p a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n . Permission t o take p a r t i n t h e second phase of t h e study was not g i v e n f o r some students who met t h e c r i t e r i a f o r membership i n Group D. No reason was asked f o r but i n two cases p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t they f e l t t h e i r c h i l d had been s u b j e c t e d t o enough t e s t i n g . In t h r e e o t h e r cases parents i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r child  r e f u s e d t o take  part  i n a study  because t h i s was an a c t i v i t y t h e caused  which emphasized  reading  the c h i l d a great deal of  s t r e s s and a n x i e t y . The  c o n s t r a i n t s o f time  and r e s o u r c e s make i t necessary t o  s c r e e n l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n s w i t h group a d m i n i s t e r e d  tests.  The SDRT  was chosen f o r t h e p r e s e n t study because o f i t s d i a g n o s t i c a b i l i t y and t h e CCAT was chosen t o measure nonverbal a b i l i t y because i t had been normed i n Canada. There a r e students who do not perform w e l l  201 on group a d m i n i s t e r e d t e s t s so t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e some d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s were d i s q u a l i f i e d by t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e c r i t e r i a and others i n c l u d e d who would not have been i d e n t i f i e d as d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s had i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d r e a d i n g t e s t s been used.  Conclusion  Reading t y p o l o g y p r o v i d e d a way o f grouping d i s a b l e d readers into  specific  subtypes  according  to c l i n i c a l  profiles,  reading  performance, o r p a t t e r n s o f c o g n i t i v e development. T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e t o g i v e a s i n g l e d i a g n o s t i c l a b e l t o a l l t h e students who belong  to a particular  subtype.  However,  the reading  typology  l i t e r a t u r e has r a i s e d some q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s , chief  o f which  individual  i s the f a i l u r e  level.  t o look  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  a t t h e student  which  are t y p i c a l  a t the o f the  group a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e same as those which a r e s p e c i f i c t o the  individual. The unique c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h i s study i s t h a t i t has o f f e r e d  a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t way o f l o o k i n g a t r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . I t has used  a traditional  experimental  subtyping  technique.  Thus  approach  combined  subtypes  were  with  a  identified  clinical using  a  c o n v e n t i o n a l method, then members o f each subtype were examined one by  one u s i n g a t a s k t h a t has been proven  as a good p r e d i c t o r o f  a b i l i t y . T h i s i s a technique t h a t has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r programming i n terms o f d e v i s i n g a remedial program t a i l o r e d not o n l y f o r a  202  group but f o r an Not  only  individual.  d i d the  method p r o v i d e  another  way  of  l o o k i n g at  members o f p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d groups a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l but it  provided  an  additional  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning  and  of  t a s k . I t allowed  through a d i f f e r e n t processing  method  avenue and  strategy  subtyping  subtyping  provided  use  that  through  t o be  the  approached  i n f o r m a t i o n about mental  could  not  be  obtained  by  c o n v e n t i o n a l d i f f e r e n t i a l and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g methodologies. T h i s study has shown t h a t the m a j o r i t y of a group of r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d students d i d not use the same processes and s t r a t e g i e s i n a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g as a group of normal r e a d e r s . The subgroup of reading-disabled appropriate ability.  students  who  used  the  most  s t r a t e g y tended t o have h i g h e r  However, a b i l i t y  efficient  v e r b a l and  nonverbal  alone c o u l d not account f o r the use  i n e f f i c i e n t and i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s nor was  s t r a t e g i e s and r e a d i n g  of  i t able to explain  the l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p between a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g and  and  components  skills.  T h i s l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two  systems i s perhaps  the most s u r p r i s i n g and p a r a d o x i c a l f i n d i n g of the study as t h e r e are many precedents processes  i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t l i n k  to reading d i s a b i l i t i e s .  measured through the  reading  c h i l d r e n may  children.  be t h a t what was  v a r i a b l e s and  v a r i a b l e s impinged i n a d i f f e r e n t way reading-disabled  I t may  In  neuropsychological  analogical  being  reasoning  on the r e a d i n g a b i l i t y of the  other  words,  reading  disabled  have s t r u g g l e d with c e r t a i n of the r e a d i n g t a s k s  and  203 then have gone on t o s o l v e the a n a l o g i e s i n a unique way. t u r n , may  be  e x p l a i n e d by the nature  Spear (1983) r e g a r d decoding up  processing  and  Content-driven  or  This, i n  of the t a s k s . S t e r n b e r g  and  and r e a d i n g comprehension as bottom-  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning bottom-up  as  processing  top-down  is  processing.  dependent  upon  the  content of the m a t e r i a l being processed whereas top-down p r o c e s s i n g is  content  free  processor.  and  Thus the  dependent reading  upon  skills  the  characteristics  being  measured  were  of  the  largely  dependent upon the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y of the words t o be decoded in  each  reading  task  r e l a t i v e l y n o v e l and  whereas the the processes  a n a l o g i c a l reasoning and  task  was  s t r a t e g i e s used were more  dependent upon the i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the  student.  Another p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n suggests t h a t the subtypes formed on the b a s i s o f s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i n r e a d i n g s k i l l s may represented  measures a t  a n a l y s i s may  a macro  have r e p r e s e n t e d  level  whereas the  have  componential  measures of p r o c e s s i n g  a t a micro  l e v e l , r a t h e r as a t e l e s c o p e r e v e a l s the gross anatomy of the wing of  a  bird  structure  and of  processing  may  the an  microscope  individual  have  been  so  reveals  minute  details  feather.  In  addition,  specific  to  the  of  the  component  individual  that  d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o c e s s i n g between i n d i v i d u a l s were b u r i e d i n a l l the  reading  disability  subtypes w i t h i n  subtypes.  subtypes.  This  i m p l i e s the  existence  of  204 Suggestions f o r Future Research  This subtyping looked  was  unique  in  that  i t combined  students  from  the  at  the  study  group  was  a  and  traditional  individual level.  clinical  d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . Most subtyping more s e v e r e l y d i s a b l e d readers,  sample  of  Research has efficient  schematic  picture  the  one  most  analogies.  However,  more  severely  t h e r e f o r e i t i s suggested t h a t  indicated that  and  and  r e s e a r c h has been c a r r i e d out with  methodology used here be extended t o a c l i n i c a l  most  a  methodology w i t h the method of componential a n a l y s i s  at  missing  study  a  sample.  self-terminating  likely  However,  to  the  the  be  strategy  used  majority  in of  is  solving reading-  d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s d i d not choose the most e f f i c i e n t s t r a t e g y ; some chose  an  exhaustive  strategy  and  others  chose  strategies  contravened the assumption of l i n e a r i t y and v i o l a t e d the f a c t o r r u l e . No r e l a t i o n s h i p was a  reading  reasoning.  disability  that  additive  e s t a b l i s h e d between membership i n  c l u s t e r and  strategy  choice  in  analogical  I t has been suggested t h a t t h i s l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p may  be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the bottom-up v e r s u s top-down nature of the tasks. more  Perhaps the use in  keeping  with  of v e r b a l a n a l o g i e s a  reading  task  could provide and  thereby  two  content  reveal  a  r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s were not a b l e t o do.  Kolligian  and S t e r n b e r g (1987) have suggested t h a t d e f i c i e n c i e s i n  executive  or metacomponents are not i n v o l v e d i n r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s as t h i s would a f f e c t a l l aspects of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g . However, i n  205 this  study,  the majority  of  students  appeared  to  be  using  m e t a c o g n i t i v e processes t h a t were found t o be l i n k e d t o i n e f f i c i e n t and  inappropriate  deficiency process.  strategies. This  i n some area  Kolligian  that  also  and Sternberg  link  may  interferes  be mediated with  by a  the reading  1987) t h e o r i z e d t h a t  deficient  working memory was t h e l i n k between metacomponential f u n c t i o n i n g and  reading  disabilities.  They suggested  that d e f i c i e n t  working  memory i s unable t o h o l d metacomponential i n f o r m a t i o n and allows i n e f f i c i e n t o r i n a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s t o be used. T h i s i s another area which c o u l d u s e f u l l y be e x p l o r e d .  REFERENCES Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study s t r a t e g i e s and adjunct a i d s . I n R. J . S p i r o , B. B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i n r e a d i n g comprehension (pp. 484-502). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Applebee, A. M. (1971). Research i n r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n : Two c r i t i c a l problems. J o u r n a l o f C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s . 12, 91-113. Bannatyne, A. (1974) . A note on the r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f WISC s c a l e d s c o r e s . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 7, 272-274. Benton, A. L. (1978). Some c o n c l u s i o n s about d y s l e x i a . I n A. L. Benton & D. P e a r l (Eds.), D y s l e x i a : An a p p r a i s a l o f c u r r e n t knowledge (pp. 451-476). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Blachman, B. A. (1983). A r e we a s s e s s i n g t h e l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s c r i t i c a l i n e a r l y reading? Annals o f D y s l e x i a , 33, 91-109. Boder, E. (1971). Developmental d y s l e x i a : P r e v a i l i n g d i a g n o s t i c concepts and a new d i a g n o s t i c approach. In H. R. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ( V o l . 2, pp. 293-321). New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n . Boder, E. (1973). Developmental d y s l e x i a : A d i a g n o s t i c approach based on t h r e e a t y p i c a l r e a d i n g p a t t e r n s . Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 15, 663-687. Boder, E., & J a r r i c o , S. (1982). The Boder T e s t o f Reading S p e l l i n g P a t t e r n s . New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n . Borkowski, J . G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987). M e t a c o g n i t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , and c o n t r o l l e d performance. I n S. C e c i (Ed.), Handbook o f c o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l , and n e u r o l o g i c a l aspects of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s (Vol I I , pp. 147-174). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1983). C a t e g o r i z i n g sounds and l e a r n i n g t o read: A c a u s a l connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason i n r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g . Ann Arbor, MI: U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan P r e s s . Brady, S., & Fowler, A. E. (1988). P h o n o l o g i c a l p r e c u r s o r s t o r e a d i n g a c q u i s i t i o n . In R. L. Masland & M. W. Masland (Eds.), P r e v e n t i o n o f r e a d i n g f a i l u r e (pp. 204-215). Parton, MD: York Press.  207 Brady, S., Shankweiler, D., & Mann, V. (1983). Speech p e r c e p t i o n and memory c o d i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d Psychology, 35, 345-367. Brown, A. L. (1980) M e t a c o g n i t i v e development and r e a d i n g . In R. J . S p i r o , B. B. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (eds.), T h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s i n r e a d i n g comprehension (pp. 456-481). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . C a l f e e , R. C. (1977). Assessment o f independent r e a d i n g s k i l l s : B a s i c r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . In A. S. Reber & H.S. Scarborough (Eds.), Towards a psychology o f r e a d i n g (pp. 289323). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . C a l f e e , R. C., & Drum, P. A. (1978). L e a r n i n g t o read: Theory, r e s e a r c h , and p r a c t i c e . C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 8, 183-249. C a l f e e , R. C., & Spector, J . E. (1981). Separable p r o c e s s e s i n r e a d i n g . In P. Satz & R. M o r r i s (Eds.), N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l and c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n r e a d i n g (pp. 3-29). New York: Academic Press. Denckla, M. B. (1977). Minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n and d y s l e x i a : Beyond d i a g n o s i s by e x c l u s i o n . In M. E. Blaw, J . Rapin, & M. Kinsbourne (Eds.), T o p i c s i n c h i l d neurology (pp. 243-261). New York: Spectrum. Denckla, M. B., Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): D y s l e x i a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from o t h e r l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . Neuropsychologica. 14. 471-479. Doehring, D. G. (1976). A c q u i s i t i o n o f r a p i d r e a d i n g responses. Monographs o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d Development, 41, (#165). Doehring, D. G., & Hoshko, I . M. (1977). C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f r e a d i n g problems by t h e Q-technique o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Cortex, 13, 281294. Doehring, D. G. , Hoshko, I . M. , & Bryans, B. N. (1979). S t a t i s t i c a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n w i t h r e a d i n g problems. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 1, 5-16. Doehring, D. G., T r i t e s , R. L., P a t e l , P. G., & F i e d o r o w i c z , C. A. M. (1981). Reading D i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Academic P r e s s . Dorman, C. (1987). Reading d i s a b i l i t y subtypes i n n e u r o l o g i c a l l y impaired s t u d e n t s . Annals o f D y s l e x i a , 37, 166-188. Downing, J . , & Leong, York: M a c M i l l a n .  C. K.  (1982).  Psychology  o f r e a d i n g . New  208 Dunn, L. M. , & Dunn, L. M. , (1981). Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary T e s t - R e v i s e d . C i r c l e P i n e s , MN: American Guidance S e r v i c e . D u r r e l l , D. D., & C a t t e r s o n , J . H. (1980). D u r r e l l A n a l y s i s o f Reading; D i f f i c u l t y . New York: Harcourt, Brace, & J a n o v i c h . E h r i , L. (1979). L i n g u i s t i c i n s i g h t : T h r e s h o l d o f r e a d i n g a c q u i s i t i o n . In G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. W a l l e r (Eds.), Reading r e s e a r c h : Advances i n t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e ( V o l . 2, pp. 63-114). New York: Academic P r e s s . E l l i s , A. W. (1985). The c o g n i t i v e neuropsychology o f developmental (and acquired) d y s l e x i a : A c r i t i c a l survey. C o g n i t i v e Neuropsychology, 2, 169-205. E l l i s , N. (1981). V i s u a l and name c o d i n g i n d y s l e x i c P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research. 43., 102-218.  children.  E v e r i t t , B. (1980). C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s . London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books. Feagans, L., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). V a l i d a t i o n o f language subtypes i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 78., 358-364. Feagans, L., & McKinney, J . D. (1981). P a t t e r n s o f e x c e p t i o n a l i t y a c r o s s domains i n l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Developmental Psychology, 1, 313-328. F i s k , J . L., & Rourke, B. P. (1979). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f subtypes of l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n a t t h r e e age l e v e l s : A n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l , m u l t i v a r i a t e approach. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 1, 289-310. F l e i s s , J . L., Lawlor, W., Platman, S. R., & F i e v e , R. R. (1971). On the i n v e r t e d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s f o r g e n e r a t i n g o f t y p o l o g i e s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal Psychology, 77, 127-132. Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1980). Phonemic a n a l y s i s and severe reading d i s a b i l i t y i n c h i l d r e n . Journal of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Research. 9, 115-119. Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1983). Reading d i s a b i l i t y , phonemic a n a l y s i s , and dysphonetic s p e l l i n g : A f o l l o w - u p study. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l C h i l d Psychology, 12, 28-32. Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1984). Phonemic a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s as word a t t a c k s k i l l : R e v i s i t e d . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 76, 1059-64.  209 F r e d e r i k s e n , J . R. (1978). Assessment o f p e r c e p t u a l , decoding and l e x i c a l s k i l l s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o r e a d i n g p r o f i c i e n c y . I n A. M. L e s g o l d , J . W. P e l l e g r i n o , S. Fokkema, & R. G l a s s e r (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e psychology and i n s t r u c t i o n (pp. 152-169). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Gadow, K. D., & Swanson, H. L. (1986). A s s e s s i n g drug e f f e c t s on academic performance. In K. D. Gadow (Ed.), M e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n human psychopharmacology (pp. 247-279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Godfrey, J . J . , Syndal-Lasky, A. K., M i l l a j , K. K., & Knox, C. M. (1981). Performance o f d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n on speech p e r c e p t i o n t e s t s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 32, 401-424. Goodman, K. S. (1968). The p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c nature o f t h e r e a d i n g p r o c e s s . D e t r o i t , OH: Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Gordon, H. W. (1984). D y s l e x i a . In R. E. T a r t e r & G. G o l d s t e i n (Eds.), Advances i n c l i n i c a l neuropsychology ( V o l 2, pp. 181205). New York: Plenum P r e s s . H a r r i s , A. J . (1981). How many k i n d s o f r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y a r e t h e r e ? J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 15, 456-460. Hynd, G. , & Cohen, M. (1983). D y s l e x i a : N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory, r e s e a r c h and c l i n i c a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . New York: Grune & Stratton. Ingram, T. T. S., Mason, A. W., & Blackburn, I . (1970). A r e t r o s p e c t i v e study o f 82 c h i l d r e n w i t h r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology. 12., 271-281. Jackson, M., & McLelland, J . (1979). P r o c e s s i n g determinants o f r e a d i n g speed. J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: General , 108, 151-181. Jansky, J . , & DeHirsch, K. (1972). P r e v e n t i n g r e a d i n g f a i l u r e : P r e d i c t i o n , d i a g n o s i s , and i n t e r v e n t i o n . New York: Harper & Row. J a s t a k , J . , & J a s t a k , S. (1978). Wide Range Achievement Wilmington, DE: J a s t a k A s s o c i a t e s .  Test.  Johnson, D., & Myklebust, H. (1967). L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : E d u c a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s and p r a c t i c e s . New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n . Jorm, A. F. (1983). S p e c i f i c r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n and working memory: A review. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 74., 311-342.  210 Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). An i n v i t e d a r t i c l e : P h o n o l o g i c a l r e a d i n g and r e a d i n g a c q u i s i t i o n . A p p l i e d P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , 4, 103-147. K a r l s e n , B., Madden, E., & Gardner, E. F. (1976). S t a n f o r d D i a g n o s t i c Reading T e s t (Brown L e v e l ) . New York: H a r c o u r t , Brace, & Janovich. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). The f a r s i d e o f heterogeneity: A c r i t i c a l analysis of subtyping research i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 20, 374382. Kaufman, A. S. (1975). F a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e WISC-R a t 11 age l e v e l s between 6 1/2 and 16 1/2 y e a r s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 43, 135-147. Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E. K. (1963). Developmental f a c t o r s i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g backwardness. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 54, 145-156. K o l l i g i a n , J . , & Sternberg, R. J . (1987). I n t e l l i g e n c e , i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g , and s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : A t r i a r c h s y n t h e s i s . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 20, 8-17. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J . (1974). Toward a t h e o r y o f automatic i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i n r e a d i n g . C o g n i t i v e Psychology, 6, 193323. L a i , C. (1982). H i e r a r c h i c a l grouping a n a l y s i s w i t h o p t i o n a l c o n t i g u i t y c o n s t r a i n t : Program manual. Computing S e r v i c e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Lawson, M. L. (1984). Being e x e c u t i v e about m e t a c o g n i t i o n . In R. J . K i r b y (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s and e d u c a t i o n a l performance (pp. 89-109). Orlando, FL: Academic P r e s s . Liberman, I . Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and t h e problems o f l e a r n i n g t o read and w r i t e . Remedial and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n . 6, 8-17. Liberman, I . Y., Mann, V. A., Shankweiler, D., & Werfelman, M. (1980). C h i l d r e n ' s memory f o r r e c u r r i n g l i n g u i s t i c and n o n l i g u i s t i c m a t e r i a l i n r e l a t i o n t o r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . Cortex, $ 367. Liberman, I . Y., Shankweiler, D., F i s c h e r , F. W., & C a r t e r , B. (1974). E x p l i c i t s y l l a b l e and phoneme segmentation i n t h e young c h i l d . J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 8, 1-12.  211 Liberman, I . Y., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A. M., Fowler, C. , & F i s c h e r , F. W. (1977). P h o n e t i c segmentation and r e c o d i n g i n the b e g i n n i n g r e a d e r . In A.S. Reber & H. S. Scarborough (Eds.), Towards a psychology o f r e a d i n g (pp. 207-225) . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . L o v e t t , M. W. (1984). The s e a r c h f o r subtypes of s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y : R e f l e c t i o n s from a c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . Annals o f D y s l e x i a , 34, 155-178. Lyon, R., & Watson, B. (1981). E m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d subgroups o f learning-disabled readers: Diagnostic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Journal of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 14, 256-261. Lyon, R., Stewart, N., & Freedman, D. (1982). N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d subgroups o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology, 4, 343365. Lyon, R., R i e t t a , S, Watson, B., Porch, B., & Rhodes, J . (1981). S e l e c t e d l i n g u i s t i c and p e r c e p t u a l a b i l i t i e s o f e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d subgroups o f l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 19, 152-166. Malatesha, R. N., & Dougan, D. R. (1982). C l i n i c a l subtypes of developmental d y s l e x i a : R e s o l u t i o n of an i r r e s o l u t e problem. In R. N. Malatesha, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Reading d i s o r d e r s : V a r i e t i e s and treatments (pp. 69-92). New York: Academic P r e s s . Massaro, D. W. (1975). V i s u a l f e a t u r e s , p e r c e p t u a l s t o r a g e , and p r o c e s s i n g time i n r e a d i n g . In D. W. Massaro (Ed.), Understanding language: An i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g a n a l y s i s o f speech p e r c e p t i o n (pp. 207-239). New York: Academic P r e s s . M a t t i s , S. (1978). D y s l e x i a syndromes: A working h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e a l l y works. In A. L. Benton & D. P e a r l (Eds.), D y s l e x i a : An a p p r a i s a l o f c u r r e n t knowledge (pp. 43-67). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. M a t t i s , S., French, J . H. , & Rapin, I . (1975). D y s l e x i a i n c h i l d r e n and young a d u l t s : Three independent n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l syndromes. Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 17, 150-163. McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy S c a l e o f C h i l d r e n ' s A b i l i t i e s . York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . McKinney, J . D. (1984). The s e a r c h f o r subtypes o f s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 17, 50.  New  43-  212 McKinney, J . D., & Forman, S. G. (1982). Classroom behaviour p a t t e r n s o f EMH, LD, and EH s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f School Psychology, 20, 271-289. McKinney, J . D., & Speece, D. L. (1986). Academic consequences and l o n g i t u d i n a l s t a b i l i t y o f b e h a v i o r a l subtypes o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 78, 365372. McKinney, J . D., McClure, S., & Feagans, L. (1982). Classroom behaviour p a t t e r n s o f l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d and n o n l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y , 5, 45-52. Morais, J . , Cary, L., A l g e r i a , J . , & B e r t e l s o n , P. (1979). Does awareness o f speech as a sequence o f phonemes a r i s e spontaneously? C o g n i t i o n , 7, 323-331. M o r r i s , R. , B l a s h f i e l d , R. , & Satz, P. (1981). Neuropsychology and c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s : P o t e n t i a l s and problems. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology. 3, 70-100. Morey, L. C., B l a s h f i e l d , R., & Skinner, H. A. (1983). A comparison of c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e s w i t h i n a s e q u e n t i a l v a l i d a t i o n framework. M u l t i v a r i a t e B e h a v i o r a l Research, 18, 309-329. Nelson, H. E., & Warrington, E. K. (1980). An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of memory f u n c t i o n s i n d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 71, 487-503. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem s o l v i n g . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Olson, R. K., K l i e g l , R., Davidson, B. J . , & F o l z , G. (1985). I n d i v i d u a l and developmental d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . In C. E. Mackinnon & T. G. W a l l e r (Eds.), Reading r e s e a r c h : Advances i n t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e ( V o l . 4, pp. 1-63). New York: Academic P r e s s . P a l i n s c a r , A. S. (1986). M e t a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 53, 118-124.  instruction.  P a l i n s c a r , A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) The r e c i p r o c a l t e a c h i n g of comprehension f o s t e r i n g and comprehension m o n i t o r i n g a c t i v i t i e s . C o g n i t i o n and I n s t r u c t i o n , 1, 117-175. P e r f e t t i , C , & L e s g o l d , A. (1977). D i s c o u r s e comprehension and sources o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . In M. J u s t & P. Carpenter (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n comprehension (pp. 141-183). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .  213 P e r f e t t i , C., & Lesgold, A. (1979). Coding and comprehension i n s k i l l e d r e a d i n g and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n . In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and p r a c t i c e f o r e a r l y r e a d i n g ( V o l . 1, pp. 57-84). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P e r f e t t i , C., Goldman, S., & Hogaboam, T. Reading s k i l l and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of words i n d i s c o u r s e c o n t e x t . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 7, 273-282.  the  Petruskas, R. J . , & Rourke, B. P. (1979). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of subtypes of r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s : A n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l m u l t i v a r i a t e approach. J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Neuropsychology. 1, 17-37. Randawa, B. S., Hunt, D., & Rawlyk, S. A. (1974). F a c t o r i a l s t r u c t u r e , v a l i d i t y , e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y of the Canadian C o g n i t i v e A b i l i t i e s T e s t . A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 20., 208-215. Reeve, R. A., & Brown, A. L. (1985). M e t a c o g n i t i o n r e c o n s i d e r e d : i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology, 13, 343-356. Rispens, J . (1982). Reading d i s o r d e r s as i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g d i s o r d e r s . In R. N. Malatesha, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Reading d i s o r d e r s : V a r i e t i e s and treatments (pp. 177-197). New York: Academic P r e s s . Rourke, B. P. (1985). Overview of L.D. subtypes. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : E s s e n t i a l s of subtype a n a l y s i s (pp. 3-14). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an i n t e r a c t i v e model of r e a d i n g . In S. D o r n i c (Ed.), A t t e n t i o n and Performance ( V o l . VI, pp. 4567). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . R u t t e r , M. (1978). Prevalence and types of d y s l e x i a . In A. L. Benton & D. P e a r l (Eds.), D y s l e x i a : An a p p r a i s a l of c u r r e n t knowledge (pp. 4-28). New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . R u t t e r M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y . 16, 181-197. Samuels, S. J . , & E i s e n b e r g , P. (1981). A framework f o r understanding the r e a d i n g p r o c e s s . In F. J . P i r o z z o l o , & M. W i t t r o c k (Eds.), Neuropsychology and c o g n i t i v e processes i n r e a d i n g (pp. 31-67). New York: Academic Press  C.  214 Samuels, S. J . , & LaBerge, D. (1983). A theory o f a u t o m a t i c i t y i n r e a d i n g : Looking back: A r e t r o s p e c t i v e model. In L. M. G e n t i l e , M. L. Kamil, & J . S. Blanchard (Eds.), Reading r e s e a r c h r e v i s i t e d (pp. 39-55). Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l . Samuels, S. J . , & M i l l e r , N. L. (1985). F a i l u r e t o f i n d a t t e n t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s between l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d and normal c h i l d r e n on classroom and l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s . E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 5, 358-375. Satz, P., & M o r r i s , R. (1981). L e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes: A review. In F. J . P i r o z z o l o & M. C. W i t t r o c k (Eds.), Neuropsychology and c o g n i t i v e processes i n r e a d i n g (pp.109-141). New York: Academic P r e s s . Scarborough, H.S. (1984) . C o n t i n u i t y between c h i l d h o o d d y s l e x i a and a d u l t r e a d i n g . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Psychology. 75, 329-348. Seidenberg, M. S., Bruck, M., F o r n a r o l o , G., & Backman, J . (1985). Word r e c o g n i t i o n processes of poor and d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s : Do they n e c e s s a r i l y d i f f e r ? A p p l i e d P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , 6, 161-180. Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1976). E x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n s between r e a d i n g and speech. In R. M. Knights & D. S. Bakker (Eds.), Neuropsychology of l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s : T h e o r e t i c a l approaches (pp.297-313). Share, D. L., McGee, R., McKenzie, D., W i l l i a m s , S., & S i l v a , P. A. (1987). F u r t h e r evidence r e l a t i n g t o the d i s t i n c t i o n between s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n and g e n e r a l r e a d i n g backwardness. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Developmental Psychology, 5, 35-44. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding r e a d i n g : A p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s of r e a d i n g and l e a r n i n g t o read. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. Sneath, P. H. E., & Sokal, R. R. F r a n c i s c o , CA: W.H. Freeman.  (1973). Numerical taxonomy.  San  Spear, L. C , & Sternberg, R. J . (1987). An i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g framework f o r understanding r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . In S. C e c i (Ed.), Handbook of c o g n i t i v e , s o c i a l , and n e u r o l o g i c a l aspects of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s (Vol I I , pp. 2-30). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Speece, D. L. (1987). Information p r o c e s s i n g subtypes o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . Learning D i s a b i l i t y Research. 2, 91-102. Speece, D. L., McKinney, J . D., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1985). C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and v a l i d a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l subtypes of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 77, 67-77.  215 Sporn, E. L. (1981). I s d y s l e x i a a middle c l a s s d i s a b i l i t y ? A c r i t i q u e of some d e f i n i t i o n s ( D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y , New York). D i s s e r t a t i o n a b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 42, 4380A. Spreen, 0., & Haaf, R. G. (1986). E m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes: A r e p l i c a t i o n attempt and l o n g i t u d i n a l p a t t e r n s over 15 y e a r s . J o u r n a l of Learning; D i s a b i l i t i e s , 19., 170-180. S t a n o v i c h , K. E. (1982a). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s of r e a d i n g I: Word decoding. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 15, 485-493. S t a n o v i c h , K. E. (1982b). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s of r e a d i n g I I : T e x t - l e v e l p r o c e s s i n g . J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 15, 549-554. S t a n o v i c h , K. E. (1986). C o g n i t i v e processes and the r e a d i n g problems of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n : E v a l u a t i n g the assumption of s p e c i f i c i t y . In J . K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), P s y c h o l o g i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s (pp.87-131). New York: Academic P r e s s . S t a n o v i c h , K. E. (1988). E x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between the d y s l e x i c and the g a r d e n - v a r i e t y poor r e a d e r s : the p h o n o l o g i c a l core v a r i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e model. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 21. 590-604, 612. S t a n o v i c h , K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Freeman, D. J . (1984). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between e a r l y r e a d i n g a c q u i s i t i o n and word decoding w i t h and without c o n t e x t : A l o n g i t u d i n a l study of f i r s t - g r a d e c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 76, 668-677. Sternberg, R. J . (1977). I n t e l l i g e n c e , i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g : The componential a n a l y s i s of human a b i l i t i e s . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Sternberg, R. J . (1978). I n t e l l i g e n c e r e s e a r c h a t the i n t e r f a c e between d i f f e r e n t i a l and c o g n i t i v e psychology: P r o s p e c t s and p r o p o s a l s . I n t e l l i g e n c e . 2, 195-222. S t e r n b e r g , R. J . (1980a). The development of l i n e a r s y l l o g i s t i c r e a s o n i n g . J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology. 29, 342-356. Sternberg, R. J . (1980b). R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and p r o c e s s i n l i n e a r s y l l o g i s t i c r e a s o n i n g . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: G e n e r a l , 109. 119-159. S t e r n b e r g , R. J . (1981). I n t e l l i g e n c e and nonentrenchment. J o u r n a l of Psychology. 73, 1-16.  216 Sternberg, R. J . (1985). Beyond 10: A t r i a r c h t h e o r y o f human i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Sternberg, R. J . (1986). Toward a u n i f i e d t h e o r y o f human r e a s o n i n g . I n t e l l i g e n c e , 10, 281-314. S t e r n b e r g , R. J . , & Davidson, J . E. (1983). I n s i g h t i n t h e g i f t e d . E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g i s t , 18, 51-57. S t e r n b e r g , R. J . , & Ketron, J . L. (1982). S e l e c t i o n and implementation o f s t r a t e g i e s i n r e a s o n i n g by analogy. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 74, 399-413. Sternberg, R. J . , & Nigro, G. (1980). Developmental p a t t e r n s i n the s o l u t i o n o f v e r b a l a n a l o g i e s . Chi1d Deve1opment, 51, 27-38. S t e r n b e r g , R. J . , & R i f k i n , B. (1979). The development o f a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g p r o c e s s e s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 27, 195-232. Sternberg, R. J . , & Spear, L. C. (1985). A t r i a r c h t h e o r y o f mental r e t a r d a t i o n . I n N. E l l i s & N. Bray (Eds.), I n t e r n a t i o n a l review of r e s e a r c h i n mental r e t a r d a t i o n ( V o l . 13, pp.301-326). New York: Academic P r e s s . Sternberg, R. J . , & Suben, J . (1986). The s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . In M. P e r l m u t t e r (Ed.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on i n t e l l e c t u a l development: Minnesota symposia on c h i l d psychology (Vol.19, pp.201-235). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Sternberg, S. (1969). The d i s c o v e r y o f p r o c e s s i n g s t a g e s : E x t e n s i o n s o f Donder's method. A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a , 30, 276-315. Stevens, R. J . (1988). E f f e c t s o f s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g on t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e main i d e a o f e x p o s i t o r y passages. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 80, 21-26. Swanson, H. L. (1987a). I n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g t h e o r y and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : an overview. J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 20, 3-7. Swanson, H. L. (1987b). Information p r o c e s s i n g t h e o r y and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : A commentary and f u t u r e p e r s p e c t i v e . J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 20, 155-166. Swanson, H. L. (1988). Memory subtypes i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y , 11, 342-357.  217 Sweeney, J . E., & Rourke, B. P. (1985). S p e l l i n g d i s a b i l i t y subtypes. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : E s s e n t i a l o f subtype a n a l y s i s (pp.147-166). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . T a l l a l , P. (1980). Language and r e a d i n g : Some p e r c e p t u a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s . B u l l e t i n o f the Orton S o c i e t y , 30, 170-78. T a l l a l , P., & S t a r k , R. E. (1982). Perceptual/motor p r o f i l e s o f r e a d i n g impaired c h i l d r e n with or without concomitant o r a l language d e f i c i t s . Annals of D y s l e x i a , 32, 163-176. T a y l o r , H. G., F l e t c h e r , J . M., & Satz, P. (1982). Component processes i n reading d i s a b i l i t i e s : neuropsychological i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f d i s t i n c t r e a d i n g s u b s k i l l d e f i c i t s . In R. N. Malatesha, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Reading d i s o r d e r s : V a r i e t i e s and treatments (pp.121-147). New York: Academic P r e s s . T a y l o r , H. G. , Satz, P., & F r i e l , J . (1979). Developmental d y s l e x i a i n r e l a t i o n to other childhood reading disorders: S i g n i f i c a n c e and c l i n i c a l u t i l i t y . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 15, 84-101. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E., Lorge, I . , & Wright, E.N. (1974). Canadian C o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s Test ( M u l t i l e v e l e d i t i o n ) . Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons (Canada) L i m i t e d . Torgesen, J . (1977). Memorization processes i n r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 79, 571-578. Torgesen, J . (1978-1979). performance o f r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n on s e r i a l memory t a s k s . Reading Research Q u a r t e r l y , 14, 57-87. Tukey, J . W. (1977). E x p l o r a t o r y data a n a l y s i s . Addison Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Company.  Reading,  MS:  V e l l u t i n o , F. R. (1979) . D y s l e x i a : Theory and r e s e a r c h . Cambridge, MS: MIT P r e s s . V e l l u t i n o , F. R. (1980). D y s l e x i a : P e r c e p t u a l d e f i c i e n c y o r p e r c e p t u a l i n e f f i c i e n c y ? In J . F. Kavanagh & R. L. Venezky (Eds.), Orthography, r e a d i n g , and d y s l e x i a (pp.251-270). B a l t i m o r e , MY: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press. Venezky, R. L., & Massaro, D. W. (1979). The r o l e o f o r t h o g r a p h i c r e g u l a r i t y i n word r e c o g n i t i o n . In L. B. R e s n i c k & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and p r a c t i c e of e a r l y r e a d i n g ( V o l . 1, pp.85-107). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s .  218 Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J . (1984). A l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n . Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 54., 179-223. Waites, L. (1968). World F e d e r a t i o n o f Neurology: Research group on developmental d y s l e x i a and world i l l i t e r a c y . Report o f p r o c e e d i n g s , p.22. Ward, J . (1983). H i e r a r c h i c a l grouping t o o p t i m i z e an o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n . J o u r n a l o f American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 58, 236244. Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual f o r the Wechsler i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e f o r c h i l d r e n . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual f o r t h e a d u l t i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual f o r t h e Wechsler i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e f o r c h i l d r e n - r e v i s e d . New York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Wilson, N. L. (1980). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o c e s s e s and s t r a t e g i e s i n a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g . Unpublished master's t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Wong, B. Y. L. (1979). I n c r e a s i n g r e t e n t i o n o f main i d e a s through q u e s t i o n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 2, 42-47. Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). M e t a c o g n i t i o n and s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n : A review o f a view. J o u r n a l o f S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , 20, 9-29. Wong, B. Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). I n c r e a s i n g metacomprehension i n l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d and normally a c h i e v i n g s t u d e n t s through s e l f - q u e s t i o n i n g t r a i n i n g . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y , 5, 228240. Wong, B. Y. L., & Wong, R. (1986). Study behaviour as a f u n c t i o n of m e t a c o g n i t i v e knowledge about c r i t i c a l t a s k v a r i a b l e s : An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f above average, average, and l e a r n i n g - d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s . L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Research. 1, 101-111. Wright, B. D. (1977). S o l v i n g measurement problems w i t h t h e Rasch model. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 14, 97-116.  219  Appendix A. L e t t e r of consent  220  Name o f School Board. Re: Research p r o j e c t o f Margaret P o t t e r Dear Parent: A r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d "Processes and s t r a t e g i e s used by normal and d i s a b l e d readers i n a n a l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g " i s being c a r r i e d out by Margaret P o t t e r . Margaret, a t e a c h e r w i t h i n our system, i s c u r r e n t l y a t t e n d i n g t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. T h i s study forms t h e b a s i s o f t h e d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r a Doctor o f E d u c a t i o n degree. The purpose o f t h i s study i s t o d i s c o v e r how s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d r e a d e r s s o l v e a n a l o g i e s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l add t o what i s known about unskilled o r d i s a b l e d readers and p r o v i d e a better understanding o f why some c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g t o read. P e r m i s s i o n i s requested f o r your c h i l d t o take p a r t i n t h e study. The t o t a l amount o f time r e q u i r e d w i l l be approximately two hours. A p i c t u r e vocabulary tests and two r e a d i n g t e s t s w i l l be i n d i v i d u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d i n one s e s s i o n and a s e r i e s o f p i c t u r e a n a l o g i e s w i l l be g i v e n t o s m a l l groups o f students i n a second session. The i d e n t i t y o f each student w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l . Each student w i l l be a s s i g n e d a number and only t h e number w i l l be used i n r e c o r d i n g t h e data. A summary o f t h e c h i l d ' s t e s t r e s u l t s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e i f you request them. Parents who wish t o share the i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h s c h o o l personnel should i n d i c a t e t h i s by g i v i n g p e r m i s s i o n f o r t h e r e s u l t s t o be sent d i r e c t l y t o t h e s c h o o l . When the study has been completed a l l t e s t b o o k l e t s w i l l be d e s t r o y e d . You o r your c h i l d have t h e r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r withdraw from t h e study a t any time. Such r e f u s a l o r withdrawal w i l l not i n f l u e n c e your c h i l d ' s s t a n d i n g i n c l a s s i n any way. F u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f any o f these procedures w i l l be f u r n i s h e d upon r e q u e s t . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t o your c h i l d ' s t e a c h e r t h a t f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d and t h e request w i l l be passed on.  221  I consent/do not consent t o my c h i l d ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study: S i g n a t u r e of parent or guardian: I consent/do not consent t o my his/her teacher  c h i l d ' s r e s u l t s b e i n g passed  on t o  S i g n a t u r e of parent or guardian: P l e a s e s i g n t h i s form and envelope p r o v i d e d .  return  i t t o the s c h o o l i n the  sealed  222  Appendix B. Screening c h e c k l i s t f o r t e a c h e r s  223  SCREENING CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS  Name o f Student: Grade: Name o f Teacher: School:  1. E d u c a t i o n has been i n E n g l i s h s i n c e Grade 1? Yes  ... No ...  2. V i s i o n Yes  (with g l a s s e s ) i s normal?  ...No ...  3. Hearing i s normal? Yes  ...No ...  4. Has attendance i n the l a s t s c h o o l year been a t l e a s t 75 percent? Yes  ...No ...  5. Behaviour problems the Yes  might prevent t h i s student from completing  requirements o f t h i s study? ...No ...  6. Reading  i n comparison w i t h peers i s :  Above average ... Average Below average ...  224  Appendix C. Schematic P i c t u r e Analogy Booklet  225  226  227  228  229  Appendix D. Cards used t o i n s t r u c t s t u d e n t s i n s o l v i n g Schematic P i c t u r e A n a l o g i e s  230  231  Appendix E. T a b l e l i s t i n g c l u s t e r membership, Boder s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s , and CV1 and CV2 model p r e f e r e n c e f o r Group D and Group N  232  Student Number Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Dll D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 D20 D21 D22 D2 3 D24 D2 5 D2 6 D27 D28 D29 D30 D31 D32 D33 D34 D35 D3 6 D3 7 D3 8 D3 9 D40 D41 D42  Cluster  1 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1  Boder s p e l l i n g Subgroup nonspecific mixed nonspecific dysphonetic dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific dyseidetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dysphonetic nonspecific dysphonetic dyseidetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific mixed dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dysphonetic dysphonetic dyseidetic dyseidetic dysphonetic mixed nonspecific dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific  Model f o r CV1 4M 4M NM2 4M 4M IM NM2 NM1 4M NM1 NM2 IM NM2 4M IM 4M NM2 NM1 4M NM2 NM1 4M 4M 4M 4M NM1 NM2 NM2 NM2 IM 4M NM2 IM NM1 4M 4M NM2 NM2 IM NM2 NM1 NM1  Model f o r CV2 4M NM1 4M 4M 4M IM 4M NM1 4M 4M 4M IM NM2 4M 4M NM2 IM NM2 4M NM2 NM1 4M NM2 NM2 NM2 4M NM2 4M NM2 NM1 4M NM2 NM2 NM2 4M 4M NM2 4M NM2 NM2 NM1 4M  233  Student Number D43 D44 D45 D46 D47 D48 D49 D50 D51 D52 D53 D54 D55 D56 D57 D58 D59 D60 D61 D62 D63 D64 D65 D66 D67 D68 D69 D70 D71 D72 D73 D74 D75 D76 D77 Nl N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9  Cluster  3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1  Boder s p e l l i n g Subgroup nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dyseidetic dysphonetic dyseidetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dyseidetic dysphonetic dyseidetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific mixed dysphonetic nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific nonspecific  Model f o r CV1  Model f o r CV2  4M IM NM1 NM2 NM1 IM 4M 4M 4M NM1 NM2 IM NM1 NM1 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M IM NM2 IM NM2 NM1 IM 4M NM1 nM2 4M NM1 NM1 NM1  4M NM2 4M NM2 4M NM2 4M 4M 4M 4M NM2 IM NM2 NM2 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4m 4M 4M NM2 4M NM2 NM2 NM2 NM2 4M NM2 NM2 4m 4M NM2 NM2  NM2 4M 4M IM NM2 4M 4M NM2 4M  NM2 4M NM2 NM2 NM2 4M 4M 4M 4M  234  Student Number N10 Nil N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 N17 N18 N19 N2 0  Cluster  Boder s p e l l i n g Subgroup  Model f o r CV1 NM1 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M NM1  Model f o r CV2 IM NM2 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M NM2 4M NM2  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100946/manifest

Comment

Related Items