نورا
03-06-2008, 11:47 PM
السلام عليكم ورحمة وبركاته
أنا طالبة في كلية التربية وأكلف بترجمة بعض المقالات والدراسات بشكل شبه أسبوعي لكن مكاتب الترجمة أحيانا يرفضون الترجمة بسبب ضيق الوقت.. :(
فهل تستطيعون مساعدتي في ترجمة هذا الجزء قبل يوم السبت..
جعل الله لكم من كل ضيق فرجًا ومن كل هم مخرجًا..ــــــــــــــــــــــ
ــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــ
data indicated that there were no outliers, thereby reducing the risk of biased regression coefficients. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Multiple regression analysis showed that the variance accounted for by products of listening comprehension and decoding ranged from 37% to 41% and increased progressively from Grade 2 through 5. The variance accounted for by letter naming speed ranged from 11% to 2.5%, decreasing progressively from Grade 2 through 5.
Discussion:
A review of studies that investigated the relationship between IQ and reading achievement scores shows that the correlation coefficient between these two variables ranged from .30 to .54 (1984). This means that IQ can predict about 25% of the variability seen in reading achievement. The present study shows that the two components of the CMR (viz., listening comprehension and decoding) can predict from 38% to 41% of the variability seen in reading comprehension.
Apart from decoding and comprehension, speed of processing has been claimed to be yet another independent variable that affects reading performance (1999). Speed of processing cannot be ignored because it is an important ingredient of information processing. Studies that have examined the role of processing speed with reference to the double-deficit hypothesis have concluded that speed of processing does contribute to the variability in reading comprehension, even though its contribution is relatively small. On the other hand, Adlof et al. (2005) noted that fluency need not be added as a separate component to the CMR. This suggestion is based on a study in which a total of 522 children completed many tests of reading. Statistical analysis of the results indicated that in Grade 2, word recognition and fluency were undifferentiated as independent constructs. In Grade 4, the analysis showed that word recognition and listening comprehension accounted for 97% of the variance, whereas fluency did not explain any of the variance. In Grade 8, word recognition and listening comprehension accounted for all of the variance. In a study of German children, Hawelka and Wimmer (2005) found that rapid naming did not add to the variance already provided by multiletter word naming (i.e., instant word reading). Based on their studies of Chinese-, Korean-, and English-speaking children, Cho and McBride-Chang , (2005) concluded that "speed of processing is a basic resource important across all tests of cognitive processing. However, it does not appear to be linked specifically to reading" (p. 13). Vukovic and Siegel (2006), who reviewed the studies on this topic, concluded that "although there are readers who meet the classification of the double- deficit subtype, the existence of a naming speed-only subtype of dyslexia has not been consistently documented" (p. 44). This conclusion appears to be convincing, because poor decoders invariably are also slow processors, indicating that phonological processing skills and speed of processing are intertwined with each other.
In addition to the uncertainty about the independent status of reading speed, the present data show that there is a trend for the effect of speed on reading performance to decline as children move up in grade. The present study shows that the contribution of speed of
processing to reading varies from 2.5% to 8% depending on grade, with a tendency to decline in higher grades. By the time they reach Grade 5, children become proficient in instantly identifying written words, which also makes it difficult to isolate the effect of fluency from that of word recognition. That is, individuals who have good word recognition skills (i.e., sight word readers) tend to be fluent readers and vice versa. Several studies have shown that the ability to identify words instantly (sight word reading) is not an
isolated skill, but is built on grapheme-phoneme conversion skills (1992). These studies have shown that poor decoders are also dysfluent readers, and conversely, slow readers are often deficient in decoding skill.
The results of the validation study, together with the experimental, developmental, and neuropsychological studies previously mentioned, lend support to the validity of the component model of reading by showing that word recognition and linguistic comprehension are two major but independent components of cognitive domains of reading. Fluency, on the other hand, makes inconsistent contributions to reading comprehension, accounting for a negligible 2.5% of the variance at the fifth-grade level.
.
أنا طالبة في كلية التربية وأكلف بترجمة بعض المقالات والدراسات بشكل شبه أسبوعي لكن مكاتب الترجمة أحيانا يرفضون الترجمة بسبب ضيق الوقت.. :(
فهل تستطيعون مساعدتي في ترجمة هذا الجزء قبل يوم السبت..
جعل الله لكم من كل ضيق فرجًا ومن كل هم مخرجًا..ــــــــــــــــــــــ
ــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــ
data indicated that there were no outliers, thereby reducing the risk of biased regression coefficients. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Multiple regression analysis showed that the variance accounted for by products of listening comprehension and decoding ranged from 37% to 41% and increased progressively from Grade 2 through 5. The variance accounted for by letter naming speed ranged from 11% to 2.5%, decreasing progressively from Grade 2 through 5.
Discussion:
A review of studies that investigated the relationship between IQ and reading achievement scores shows that the correlation coefficient between these two variables ranged from .30 to .54 (1984). This means that IQ can predict about 25% of the variability seen in reading achievement. The present study shows that the two components of the CMR (viz., listening comprehension and decoding) can predict from 38% to 41% of the variability seen in reading comprehension.
Apart from decoding and comprehension, speed of processing has been claimed to be yet another independent variable that affects reading performance (1999). Speed of processing cannot be ignored because it is an important ingredient of information processing. Studies that have examined the role of processing speed with reference to the double-deficit hypothesis have concluded that speed of processing does contribute to the variability in reading comprehension, even though its contribution is relatively small. On the other hand, Adlof et al. (2005) noted that fluency need not be added as a separate component to the CMR. This suggestion is based on a study in which a total of 522 children completed many tests of reading. Statistical analysis of the results indicated that in Grade 2, word recognition and fluency were undifferentiated as independent constructs. In Grade 4, the analysis showed that word recognition and listening comprehension accounted for 97% of the variance, whereas fluency did not explain any of the variance. In Grade 8, word recognition and listening comprehension accounted for all of the variance. In a study of German children, Hawelka and Wimmer (2005) found that rapid naming did not add to the variance already provided by multiletter word naming (i.e., instant word reading). Based on their studies of Chinese-, Korean-, and English-speaking children, Cho and McBride-Chang , (2005) concluded that "speed of processing is a basic resource important across all tests of cognitive processing. However, it does not appear to be linked specifically to reading" (p. 13). Vukovic and Siegel (2006), who reviewed the studies on this topic, concluded that "although there are readers who meet the classification of the double- deficit subtype, the existence of a naming speed-only subtype of dyslexia has not been consistently documented" (p. 44). This conclusion appears to be convincing, because poor decoders invariably are also slow processors, indicating that phonological processing skills and speed of processing are intertwined with each other.
In addition to the uncertainty about the independent status of reading speed, the present data show that there is a trend for the effect of speed on reading performance to decline as children move up in grade. The present study shows that the contribution of speed of
processing to reading varies from 2.5% to 8% depending on grade, with a tendency to decline in higher grades. By the time they reach Grade 5, children become proficient in instantly identifying written words, which also makes it difficult to isolate the effect of fluency from that of word recognition. That is, individuals who have good word recognition skills (i.e., sight word readers) tend to be fluent readers and vice versa. Several studies have shown that the ability to identify words instantly (sight word reading) is not an
isolated skill, but is built on grapheme-phoneme conversion skills (1992). These studies have shown that poor decoders are also dysfluent readers, and conversely, slow readers are often deficient in decoding skill.
The results of the validation study, together with the experimental, developmental, and neuropsychological studies previously mentioned, lend support to the validity of the component model of reading by showing that word recognition and linguistic comprehension are two major but independent components of cognitive domains of reading. Fluency, on the other hand, makes inconsistent contributions to reading comprehension, accounting for a negligible 2.5% of the variance at the fifth-grade level.
.