CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologySecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Content-Specific and General Reading Disabilities of Secondary-Level Students: Identification and Educational Relevance

Espin, Christine A., Deno, Stanley L.·1993·The Journal of Special Education
DOI 10.1177/002246699302700304
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purposes of this study were (a) to examine the diagnostic utility of reading from text for distinguishing students with general reading disabilities from those whose reading deficits are related to background knowledge in specific content areas, and (b) to establish the educational utility of these two subgroups. Participants were 121 students (71 male and 50 female) in the 10th grade who were participating in a larger study to examine the contribution of reading to the academic success of secondary students. Students first completed a background-knowledge vocabulary test. Then they read aloud from English and science texts, studied and answered multiple-choice questions based on the selected texts, and finally read aloud from the texts again. The discrepancy between student performance in reading aloud from the prestudy English and science texts was utilized to formulate two subgroups: students with general reading deficits defined by low reading scores in both English and science, and students with content-specific deficits defined by reading scores in English that were substantially higher than in science. Results of the discrepancy analysis yielded a group of 33 students with general deficits and 6 students with content-specific deficits. To examine the educational utility of these groups, content-specific and matched general-deficit groups were compared on their poststudy reading performances of the science passage. Poststudy reading scores for the content-specific group were significantly higher than for the general-deficit group, suggesting that students in the content-specific group benefited more from study of the text than did students in the general-deficit group. Additional analyses supported the hypothesis that the content-specific deficits were due to a lack of background knowledge. Results lend support to the possibility that reading from text can be used by teachers as a diagnostic tool to identify educationally relevant subtypes of students with learning difficulties in the content areas.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002246699302700304

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Alley, G. R., 1979, Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods
  2. Dale, E., 1948, Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 11
  3. Dale, E., 1948, Educational Research Bulletin, 27, 37
  4. Deno, S. L., 1987, Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1
  5. Espin, C. A., 1990, Reading aloud from text as an indicator of achievement in the content areas
  6. Salvia, J., 1991, Assessment
  7. Scannell, D. P., 1986, Tests of achievement and proficiency
  8. Towle, A., 1989, Modern biology

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Espin, C. A., & Deno, S. L.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
ORCID
Espin, Christine A.
Venue
The Journal of Special Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1993-10
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
321-337
ISSN
  • 0022-4669 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4764
DOI
10.1177/002246699302700304
OpenAlex
W2131114396
Cited by
32
References
26
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
The Journal of Special Education (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 › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
reading disorders, prior knowledge, reading aloud, reading comprehension, scientific reading, English reading, diagnostic classification, high school students, vocabulary knowledge

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