Fast and slow namers: benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: a double-deficit perspective. Early identification and remediation of phonological-processing deficits in first-grade children at risk for reading disabilities.
Poor readers in Grade 2 (mean age 7 years 7 months) were categorized into fast and slow namer groups based on their performance on a Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) task. The fast and slow groups were then trained to read words using 3 different training regimes: one that taught onset/rime segmentation, one that taught phonemic segmentation, and one that used whole word repetition. The main results were that the slow namers acquired the words more slowly across experiences than the fast namers, irrespective of training condition, but they were particularly disadvantaged when trained with word-level units. Unlike beginning nonreaders, poor Grade 2 readers showed poorer retention following onset/rime training compared with phoneme or word level training, even when final level of learning was controlled. Further, they showed the best generalization to reading new words and nonwords following phoneme training and the worst following whole word training, even when final level of acquisition was controlled. The data are related to the P. G. Bowers and M. Wolf (1993, Reading and Writing, 5, 69-85) double-deficit hypothesis and to the specific deficits associated with early reading failure.
                Copyright 1999 Academic Press. The double-deficit hypothesis (Wolf, 1997; Wolf & Bowers, 1999, this issue) contends that deficits in phonological awareness and deficits in visual naming speed represent two independent causal impediments to reading acquisition for children with developmental reading disabilities (RD). One hundred and sixty-six children with severe RD from 7 to 13 years of age were classified into three deficit subgroups according to a double-deficit framework. A total of 140 children with RD, 84% of the sample, were classified; 54% demonstrated a double deficit (DD), 22% a phonological deficit only (PHON), and 24% a visual-naming speed deficit only (VNS). Diagnostic test profiles highlighted the joint contributions of the two core deficits in depressing written language acquisition. The children in the DD group were more globally impaired than those in the other subgroups, and the VNS group children were the highest achieving and most selectively impaired readers. Following 35 hours of word identification training, sizable gains and significant generalization of training effects were achieved by all subgroups. A metacognitive phonics program resulted in greater generalized effects across the domain of real English words, and a phonological training program produced superior outcomes within the phonological processing domain. The greatest non-word reading gains were achieved by children with only phonological deficits. The present study assessed 486 first-quarter first graders on their reading and phonological-processing skills and intelligence. Based on this assessment, and using the classification data from Hurford et al.'s (1993) study, 99 children were identified as being at risk for reading difficulties: 53 children at risk for reading disabilities (RD) and 46 children at risk for becoming "garden-variety" poor readers (GV). Half of the RD and GV groups received the phonological-processing intervention. Posttraining assessment indicated that the training procedure not only was effective in increasing the phonological-processing skills of the trained participants, but also increased their reading ability. Both of the RD and GV trained groups benefited from the training. Analyses also indicated that the initial screening device was somewhat less accurate in the present study in identifying at-risk children than in our previous studies (85% vs. approximately 98%, respectively). The results of the present study indicate that it is possible to identify children at risk for reading difficulties and to significantly improve their phonological-processing and reading abilities.
Phonics training appears to be effective for improving some reading skills. Specifically, statistically significant effects were found for nonword reading accuracy (large effect), word reading accuracy (moderate effect), and letter-sound knowledge (small-to-moderate effect). For several other outcomes, there were small or moderate effect sizes that did not reach statistical significance but may be meaningful: word reading fluency, spelling, phonological output, and reading comprehension. The effect for nonword reading fluency, which was measured in only one study, was in a negative direction, but this was not statistically significant.
Future studies of phonics training need to improve the reporting of procedures used for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment.