Cited by 795Reading and Literacy DevelopmentCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Working memory in children with reading disabilities

Gathercole, Susan Elizabeth, Alloway, Tracy Packiam, Willis, Catherine, Adams, Anne-Marie·2006·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

This study investigated associations between working memory (measured by complex memory tasks) and both reading and mathematics abilities, as well as the possible mediating factors of fluid intelligence, verbal abilities, short-term memory (STM), and phonological awareness, in a sample of 46 6- to 11-year-olds with reading disabilities. As a whole, the sample was characterized by deficits in complex memory and visuospatial STM and by low IQ scores; language, phonological STM, and phonological awareness abilities fell in the low average range. Severity of reading difficulties within the sample was significantly associated with complex memory, language, and phonological awareness abilities, whereas poor mathematics abilities were linked with complex memory, phonological STM, and phonological awareness scores. These findings suggest that working memory skills indexed by complex memory tasks represent an important constraint on the acquisition of skill and knowledge in reading and mathematics. Possible mechanisms for the contribution of working memory to learning, and the implications for educational practice, are considered.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 46 children aged 6–11 with reading disabilities, complex working memory and visuospatial short-term memory were markedly impaired, while phonological short-term memory, language, and phonological processing were low average. Complex memory was the strongest correlate of both reading and mathematics and independently predicted reading and, in some models, mathematics after IQ, language, and phonological measures were considered.

Key findings

  • The sample had low reading and mathematics scores: WORD composite mean 76.46 (SD 8.44) and WOND composite mean 84.39 (SD 12.13). Complex memory (mean 77.72, SD 8.96) and visuospatial short-term memory (mean 75.13, SD 9.56) were especially low, whereas phonological short-term memory (mean 90.18, SD 11.08), language (mean 87.78, SD 10.69), verbal IQ (mean 83.39, SD 11.86), and performance IQ (mean 82.35, SD 13.84) were low average/low.
  • Most children scored in the lowest band (<81) on complex memory (61%) and visuospatial short-term memory (70%).
  • Complex memory correlated significantly with all other measures and was the strongest predictor of mean reading and mathematics scores. Reading correlated with complex memory (r = .557), language (r = .478), phonological processing (r = .442), verbal IQ (r = .350), and performance IQ (r = .330); mathematics correlated with complex memory (r = .591), phonological processing (r = .496), performance IQ (r = .427), language (r = .414), and phonological short-term memory (r = .338).
  • In regression models, reading was independently predicted by language and complex memory (Model 1: R² = .443); when mathematics was added, mathematics and language predicted reading, but complex memory did not. For mathematics, no variable was independently significant in Model 1; complex memory was significant in Model 2 (R² = .482), phonological processing in Model 3 (R² = .465), and verbal IQ and complex memory in Model 4 (R² = .495).

Methods

  • Participants were 46 children (13 girls, 33 boys) with a mean age of 9.00 years (range 6.06–11.00 years, SD = 12 months), attending state schools in Durham, North-East England. They were identified by schools as having special educational needs requiring additional support and scored below 86 on the Wechsler Objective Reading Dimension (WORD) composite; none had emotional or behavioral difficulties.
  • Children were tested individually in six sessions of up to 30 minutes across six weeks. Measures included WMTB-C complex memory (backwards digit recall, counting recall, listening recall), visuospatial short-term memory (block recall, Visual Patterns Test), phonological short-term memory (digit recall, word list recall, word list matching), Phonological Assessment Battery (rhyme, spoonerism, alliteration), WOLD language, WISC-III UK verbal and performance IQ, WORD reading/spelling/comprehension, and WOND mathematical reasoning/numerical operations.
  • Analyses used correlations and multiple regression models predicting composite reading and mathematics scores from cognitive measures.

Limitations

  • The paper states that working memory assessment depended only on verbally based methods; at the time, robust nonverbal working memory measures for children were not available, so the degree of domain generality of the working memory deficits remains an open issue.
  • The paper notes that phonological processing deficits were less marked than working memory deficits; it suggests this may reflect the age range (up to 11 years), possible reduced sensitivity of the measures, or prior UK phonological interventions.
  • Evident from the text, not stated as a limitation: the sample is small (n = 46), selected for reading disabilities, and the design is correlational, so causal direction and generalization to other populations cannot be established.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.08.003

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 31 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 41 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 8
25 of 25
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Complex memory tasks tap working memory.

    “As the present research is not concerned specifically with distinctions between models, the theoretically neutral terms phonological and visuospatial short-term memory will be used to refer to storage-only assessments of the respective informational domains, and complex memory tasks will be interpreted as tapping working memory.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The degree to which working memory deficits specifically constrain learning progress within children with recognized learning disabilities is less well understood.

    “Although close links between memory function and individual variation in a range of aspects of learning and academic achievement in unselected samples of children are well established, the degree to which working memory deficits specifically constrain learning progress within children with recognized learning disabilities is less well understood.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(5, 40) = 6.375reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5,40)=6.375, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 39) = 6.481reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,39)=6.481, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 40) = 6.965reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5,40)=6.965, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(6, 39) = 6.824reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(6,39)=6.824, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 40) = 7.499reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5,40)=7.499, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(5, 40) = 7.829reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(5,40)=7.829, p < .001”

6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Performance IQ t statistic does not match its coefficient and standard error

    Minor

    In Table 6, Model 4, dividing the Performance IQ coefficient of −0.020 by its standard error of 0.131 gives approximately −0.153, not the reported t of −0.882.

    Reported -0.882 · recomputed -0.152672

  • Reported percentages use a higher cutoff than the stated 85+ range

    Minor

    Table 3 gives cumulative proportions through the 81-85 band of 0.78 for complex memory and 0.87 for visuospatial STM. Thus 22% and 13%, respectively, scored above 85-not the stated 9% and 4%.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lobley, 2005, Is there a role for the phonological loop in verbal complex span?, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1
  2. Vallar, G., & Papagno, C. (2002). Neuropsychological impairments of verbal short-term memory. In A. D. Baddeley, M. D. Kopelman, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of memory disorders (2nd ed., pp. 249–270). New York: John Wiley.
  3. Wagner, R. K., & Muse. A. (in press). Working memory deficits in developmental dyslexia. In T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole (Eds.), Working memory in neurodevelopmental conditions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 793

Metadata

Authors
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A.-M.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
Corresponding author
Gathercole, Susan Elizabeth
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
93
Issue
3
Pages
265-281
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133978923
Cited by
795
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 54
FWCI
30.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
working memory, reading disorders, dyslexia, short-term memory, phonological awareness, phonological working memory, fluid intelligence, verbal ability, mathematical ability, reading skills, children, low IQ, visuospatial memory, language skills
MeSH terms
Aptitude, Awareness, Child, Discrimination Learning, Dyslexia, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Language Development Disorders, Male, Mathematics, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phonetics, Problem Solving, Reading, Mental Recall, Statistics as Topic, Verbal Learning, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review