The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Double‐Deficit Theory of Reading Disability Does Not Fit All
Abstract
The double‐deficit theory of reading disability (Wolf & Bowers, 1999) was examined in a sample of 56 reading‐disabled and 45 normal‐reading elementary school children (aged 8 to 11). As hypothesized, the two groups differed markedly on all phonological analysis tasks and on rapid continuous naming of digits and letters (the double deficits), but they differed as well on orthographic tasks, attention ratings, arithmetic achievement, and all WISC‐III factors except perceptual organization. Within the reading‐disabled (RD) sample, children in the double‐deficit subgroup were no more impaired in reading and spelling than those with a single deficit in phonological analysis, and those with a single deficit in rapid naming were no more impaired than those with neither deficit. Multiple regression analyses suggest that a multiple causality theory of RD is more plausible than a double‐deficit theory.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The cut-off score criteria used in this study (WISC-III FSIQ >= 90 and both reading fluency and accuracy measures <= 15th percentile) are similar to (and in some cases stricter than) the inclusion criteria used by several other authors.
“These cut-off score criteria (WISC-III FSIQ ³ 90 and both reading fluency and accuracy measures £ 15 th percentile) are similar to (and in some cases stricter than) the inclusion criteria used by several other authors (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2001; Frijters et al., 2011; Reiter et al., 2005; Siegel, 1992; Siegel & Ryan, 1989; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Swanson, 1999, 2011).”
From WISC-III Cognitive Profiles in Children with ADHD: Specific Cognitive Impairments and Diagnostic Utility (2019) · cites this paper as Ackerman et al., 2001
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moura, O., Costa, P., & Simões, M. R. (2019) · The Journal of General Psychology · doi:10.1080/00221309.2018.1561410 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Ackerman, P. T., Holloway, C. A., Youngdahl, P. L., & Dykman, R. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
- Arkansas Children's Hospital (US)
- Venue
- Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 152-160
- ISSN
- 0938-8982 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5826
- OpenAlex
- W2068593969
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learning Disabilities Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- reading disorders, dyslexia, phonological analysis, rapid automatized naming, orthographic processing, attention, arithmetic performance, elementary school students, spelling
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.
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
