Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Remedial and Special Education
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0741932508315377v1
30/4/195    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corcos, E.
Right arrow Articles by Willows, D. M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Processing Words Varying in Personal Familiarity (Based on Reading and Spelling) by Poor Readers and Age-Matched and Reading-Matched Controls

Evelyne Corcos

York University, Glendon Campus, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, ecorcos{at}gl.yorku.ca

Dale M. Willows

University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

To evaluate whether performance differences between good and poor readers relate to reading-specific cognitive factors that result from engaging in reading activities and other experiential factors, the authors gave students in Grades 4 and 6 a perceptual identification test of words not only drawn from their personal lexicon but also varying in familiarity. During the experimental phase, on a video monitor for a duration of 60 ms, age-matched and reading-matched groups were each shown a set of pretested words varying in personal familiarity. After a 5-s delay, a "test" word was displayed, at which point participants were asked to decide whether the second word was the same as or different from the first. Measures of accuracy and reaction times for correct responses indicated that differences between reader groups still existed, despite attempts to minimize the contribution of experiential factors. Remedial interventions are discussed.

Key Words: reading • personal lexicon • word familiarity • perceptual identification • age matched • reading matched

This version was published on July 1, 2009

Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 30, No. 4, 195-206 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0741932508315377


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?