View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Morphological Processing in Reading Disabled and Skilled Spanish Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Morphological Processing in Reading Disabled and Skilled Spanish Children
Language: English
Authors: Lazaro, Miguel, Camacho, Lourdes, Burani, Cristina
Source: Dyslexia. Aug 2013 19(3):178-188.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2013
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Morphology (Languages), Reading Difficulties, Language Processing, Children, Vocabulary, Reaction Time, Accuracy, Age Differences, Morphemes, Spanish Speaking
Geographic Terms: Spain
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
DOI: 10.1002/dys.1458
ISSN: 1076-9242
Abstract: This article presents the results of a lexical decision experiment in which the base frequency (BF) effect is explored in reading disabled children and skilled readers. Three groups of participants were created. The first group was composed of children with reading disorders, the second group of skilled readers matched with the first group for chronological age and the third group of skilled readers matched for vocabulary size. The results of the experiment showed strong effects for Group, BF and also for the Group by BF interaction. Children matched for chronological age with children with reading disorders were significantly faster and more accurate than children of the other groups, who did not show any difference from each other. The effect of BF showed that children responded faster to stimuli composed of frequent bases than to stimuli with less frequent bases. However, the analysis of the interaction between Group and BF showed that only the skilled readers matched to children with reading disorders for chronological age benefited from the BF effect. The results of the experiment are discussed in the framework of theoretical accounts of morphological processing in children as well as considering the role played by the experimental task. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 41
Entry Date: 2014
Accession Number: EJ1014520
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHLCDwK1pooAOVczD7OCwhFAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE6dLRAHLBnV94RyIwIBEICBmnc0aSfE293IHbO8k66cZ4b0h6ry-n5Rc0KGyFGlxMW53rZesLkbQluFdNbusxyyi9YRkza450_czwMdJJijpb2RLZdz_fPI0NBWvCVoUdcsZrcSx0vWCZC0-zfChuckwjnRkpncRtCWbkgIlPW0HAgyjhS7ZNDjhAYFUjm-6Ea7P2KnxSWTbihER_PxaNosyQQb_D6z-AMH8Jo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0088905060;tr401aug.13;2018Jul12.15:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0088905060-1">Morphological Processing in Reading Disabled and Skilled Spanish Children. </title> <p>This article presents the results of a lexical decision experiment in which the base frequency (BF) effect is explored in reading disabled children and skilled readers. Three groups of participants were created. The first group was composed of children with reading disorders, the second group of skilled readers matched with the first group for chronological age and the third group of skilled readers matched for vocabulary size. The results of the experiment showed strong effects for Group, BF and also for the Group by BF interaction. Children matched for chronological age with children with reading disorders were significantly faster and more accurate than children of the other groups, who did not show any difference from each other. The effect of BF showed that children responded faster to stimuli composed of frequent bases than to stimuli with less frequent bases. However, the analysis of the interaction between Group and BF showed that only the skilled readers matched to children with reading disorders for chronological age benefited from the BF effect. The results of the experiment are discussed in the framework of theoretical accounts of morphological processing in children as well as considering the role played by the experimental task. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p> <p>children; dyslexia; morphological processing; morphology; base frequency</p> <p>Most words in any speaker's lexicon are complex, that is, they are composed of at least two morphemes (e.g. Booij, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>] for Dutch; Rey‐Debove, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>] for French). Correspondingly, the majority of unfamiliar words are also morphologically complex (e.g. Thornton, Iacobini, & Burani, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref3">38</reflink>] ). The ability to construct the meaning of words from their morphemic constituents is therefore important to favour reading comprehension (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>] ; McBride‐Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, & Shu, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>] ; Ramírez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref6">33</reflink>] ). This ability is even more important when one frequently has to cope with unfamiliar complex words, as it is the case for children. Children become increasingly aware of morphological relationships between constituents of complex words (e.g. Carlisle, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>] ; Carlisle & Stone, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>] ; García & González, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref9">20</reflink>] ), and their increase in morphological awareness has a direct impact on their reading comprehension (Kieffer & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref10">21</reflink>] ; Kirby, Deacon, Bowers, Izenberg, Wade‐Woolley, & Parrila, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Although there is broad consensus for the important role of morphological processing, there are different accounts nonetheless that explain the nature of this process in children. One such account is offered by authors such as Carlisle ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] ) or Seymour ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref13">36</reflink>] ), who maintain that the ability to process complex words into morphemes is acquired and develops gradually. According to these authors, morphological skills begin to develop with formal reading instruction and are fully acquired only at an advanced stage of learning to read. Children with formal instruction and learning capabilities would be able to successfully parse and analyse words into their constituent morphemes while beginning readers would not. Therefore, this theoretical account predicts that only more experienced children should show differences in processing simple versus complex words because of their ability to parse and process morphemes.</p> <p>This developmental account of morphological processing is supported by some empirical evidence. Bertram, Laine and Virkkala ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>] ) carried out an experiment in which 3rd and 6th grade children performed a definition task. Stimuli were complex words combining high‐frequency and low‐frequency stems and suffixes, with simple words used as controls. The results for the youngest children showed that complex words with high‐frequency morphemes were more adequately defined than complex words with less frequent morphemes and simple words. However, there were no significant differences between simple and complex words made up of infrequent morphemes. The results for the oldest children also revealed a pattern showing better definitions for the complex words composed of high‐frequency stems and suffixes than for the other stimuli but, in addition, they also showed that complex words comprised of infrequent stems and suffixes were better defined than simple words. Bertram et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>] ) concluded that older children are more effective at morphological processing than younger children, and for this reason, differences between simple and complex words composed of infrequent constituents only appeared among the oldest children.</p> <p>In Spanish, an effect of the frequency of constituent morphemes on children's ability to comprehend new words has been demonstrated by Lázaro ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>] ). In a pseudoword definition task, 7 to 9‐year‐old children with and without reading difficulties were able to benefit from the frequency of the stem of the base word, defining better the meaning of the pseudowords that were made up of more frequent word stems. These results indicated that children even in the first years of learning to read and also those with lesser reading abilities may be able to process relevant information in morphemes.</p> <p>However, more frequent content morphemes, and especially stems, usually belong to the core vocabulary of a language. Thus, it might be argued that more frequent morphemes are recognized more easily by children, not only because they are more frequent, but also because they are more basic semantically. Accordingly, the use of the definition task, in which semantic processing is crucial, might allow younger and less skilled readers to match the performance of older, more skilled children. In addition, the definition task might be comparatively easier for less skilled children because it is not usually performed under time limitations. Davies, Cuetos and Glez‐Seijas ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref17">15</reflink>] ) and Zoccolotti, De Luca, Judica and Burani ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>] ) both reported that for transparent orthographies such as Spanish and Italian, reading disabled children could improve their reading performance and even performed as well as their peers, when they were given enough time to complete the task.</p> <p>If recognition of morphemic units by less skilled children requires both a sufficiently long period for processing the orthographic stimulus (Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>] ; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>] ) and relies primarily on the meaning of morphemes (Beyersmann, Castles, & Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>] ), then morphological effects might be less likely to occur when children with reading difficulties are exposed to other tasks. One example is on‐line lexical decision tasks, in which rapid orthographic processing is crucial to access the lexicon, and in which semantic processing is not involved to the same extent as in the word definition task (see, e.g. Balota & Chumbley, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>] ; Plaut, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In the present study, we investigated morphological processing in children using lexical decision, performed under time constraints. In making lexical decisions, children with reading difficulties and younger readers are not expected to benefit from the presence of constituent morphemes to the same extent as skilled readers because this task requires participants to quickly access a lexical representation for a letter string.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-2">EXPERIMENT</hd> <p>We conducted a lexical decision experiment in which we manipulated the base frequency (BF) of the word, to gain further insight into morphological processing in children with reading disorders and skilled readers. BF is defined as the frequency of the target word's stem, including all inflected and derived words that share that stem. For example, according to the database of Alameda and Cuetos ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>] ), the Spanish word jardinero (gardener) has a surface frequency of seven, but a BF of 93. The latter is the frequency of its stem jardín (garden) in all the words that include it. A facilitatory BF effect on word recognition has been observed in several studies of adult readers in Dutch, Italian, English and Spanish (e.g. Bertram, Schreuder, & Baayen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>] ; Burani & Caramazza, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>] ; Ford, Davis, & Marslen‐Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>] ; Lázaro, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref28">23</reflink>] ). These studies have shown that complex words with high‐base frequencies elicit faster responses than words with low‐base frequencies in lexical decision tasks. These results suggest that adult readers rely on morphological processing during recognition of complex words. However, it may also be predicted that children who have not yet acquired good decoding abilities, such as children with reading difficulties or children in the first years of reading instruction, may not benefit from the presence of morphemes in a word to the same extent as skilled readers.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-3">METHOD</hd> <p>A 3 (Group: children with reading disorders, skilled readers matched for chronological age and skilled readers matched for vocabulary level) × 2 (BF: high and low BF) mixed factors factorial design was used. Reading group was the between subjects factor and BF the repeated measure.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-4">PARTICIPANTS</hd> <p>Sixty children from three different public schools completed the lexical decision task, 20 in each of the three experimental groups. The schools were located in a middle class neighbourhood of Talavera de la Reina, a city with an average socioeconomic level for Spain. All children and parents were native Spanish speakers. The age difference between the children with reading disorders and the age‐matched skilled readers was not significant (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>) = 2.06, p > 0.07), but the age difference between the youngest children and the reading disabled group was different statistically (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>) = −14.8, p < 0.01). Between the oldest and the youngest skilled readers, there were also statistically significant difference in age (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>) = −10.06, p < 0.01). See Table [NaN] .</p> <p>Mean age and scores on Peabody test of participants (standard deviations in brackets)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="center">Group</th><th align="center">Chronological age in months</th><th align="center">Peabody's raw scores</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading disabled children</td><td align="char" char=".">98.5</td><td align="char" char=".">112.4</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">(9.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">(29.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Skilled children matched on vocabulary size</td><td align="char" char=".">85.0</td><td align="char" char=".">116.9</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">(4.0)</td><td align="char" char=".">(26.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Skilled children matched on chronological age</td><td align="char" char=".">94.1</td><td align="char" char=".">138.1</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">(4.6)</td><td align="char" char=".">(13.2)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Children with reading difficulties were selected from the population of children attending the Speech and Language Therapy service of schools. All were diagnosed as ‘reading disabled’ with no suggestions of other language or speech disorders. To further assess the children's reading difficulties, all children also completed the PROLEC‐R test (Cuetos, Rodríguez, Ruano, & Arribas, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>] ). This test is validated for Spanish children aged between 6 and 12 years and consists of nine different subtests: letter identification, same–different word, reading words aloud, reading nonwords aloud, grammatical structures, punctuation marks, simple sentence comprehension, text comprehension and oral comprehension. The performance on each exam is evaluated as being normal, slightly below normal or far below normal compared with a normative sample of children of the same age. The children selected for the present study did not attain a ‘normal’ score on any measure, although ‘oral comprehension’ was not considered a critical measure for inclusion.</p> <p>The children in the group of skilled readers were selected randomly from four different classrooms, excluding children that had previously received any treatment for speech or language disorders. Teachers confirmed that none of these children had demonstrated any issues concerning poor language, hearing, speech or motor skills.</p> <p>It is widely acknowledged that differences in children's vocabulary sizes predict their attainment on particular reading tasks (e.g. Lee, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref33">25</reflink>] ; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref34">37</reflink>] ; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref35">40</reflink>] ). As in Ouellette and Beers's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>] ) study, all our children completed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Spanish version by Lunn, Dunn, & Arribas, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>] ) to establish their receptive vocabulary size. As expected, skilled readers matched for chronological age had significantly larger vocabulary scores than the reading disabled group (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>) = 6.1, p < 0.01). The youngest group's scores were similar to those of the reading disabled children on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>) = −0.6, p > 0.5), but they were lower than those of the older skilled readers (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>) = 6.8, p < 0.01). See Table [NaN] .</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-5">STIMULI</hd> <p>A set of 40 suffixed derived words was selected, 20 with a high BF and 20 with a low BF. The controlled variables were word surface frequency, suffix productivity (considered as the number of different complex words in which the suffix occurs), orthographic neighbourhood density (N hereafter), letter length of words and suffixes and morphological family size (see Table [NaN] ). Between groups t‐tests showed no significant differences between the high BF and the low BF experimental sets in the values of the matching variables, except in the case of N (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>) = 3.64, p < 0.01) and suffix productivity (t(<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>) = 2.87, p < 0.01), which had higher values in the set of words with high BF. Considering that a higher N may facilitate recognition of low‐frequency words (see, e.g. Andrews, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>] ) and a higher suffix productivity may facilitate the emergence of the BF effect (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>] ), the possible contribution to the results of the differences in these values – both in favour of words with a high BF – will be considered in the results section later in the text. Because there is no single database in Spanish that provides counts for all the variables we considered, we used three different resources. All word and stem frequencies were taken from Martínez and García's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>] ) child frequency count, whereas the other variables were taken from Alameda and Cuetos ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>] ) database. The inverse dictionary of Bosque and Pérez ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref47">9</reflink>] ) in which words are listed from the ending letter was employed to count suffix productivity. The 40 nonwords were created by changing one or two letters in the stems of the real complex words; suffixes were therefore not modified.</p> <p>Descriptive statistics of the experimental items (standard deviations in brackets)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">BF</th><th align="center">SF</th><th align="center">N</th><th align="center">LL</th><th align="center">Stem FS</th><th align="center">Suffix productivity</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Low BF</td><td align="center">42</td><td align="center">6.7</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="char" char=".">8.1</td><td align="center">7.2</td><td align="center">990</td></tr><tr><td align="center">(30)</td><td align="center">(7.3)</td><td align="char" char=".">(.8)</td><td align="char" char=".">(.9)</td><td align="center">(1.8)</td><td align="center">(988)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">High BF</td><td align="center">243</td><td align="center">9.5</td><td align="char" char=".">1.6</td><td align="char" char=".">7.8</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">1515</td></tr><tr><td align="center">(209)</td><td align="center">(11)</td><td align="char" char=".">(1.4)</td><td align="char" char=".">(1.3)</td><td align="center">(1.8)</td><td align="center">(984)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: frequency per 1.200.000 words. BF, base frequency; SF, word surface frequency; N, neighbourhood density; LL, letter length; FS, family size.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-6">PROCEDURE</hd> <p>Participants were instructed to judge as quickly as possible whether the presented letter strings were real words or not, while avoiding errors. Participants sat at a distance approximately 50 cm from a laptop screen in a quiet room. A fixation point was presented on a screen for 1 s, followed by the presentation of a word or nonword target for 3 s or until the participant responded. After a response or time out, a blank screen was displayed for 500 ms. The order of presentation of the stimuli was fully randomized.</p> <p>Prior to the experiment, five trials were presented in this same manner. None of the five stimuli presented in this training session were used in the subsequent experiment.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-7">RESULTS</hd> <p>Response times associated with incorrect responses were not considered in the analyses. Given the high standard deviations, there were no scores faster or slower than 2.5 standard deviations from the mean. However, responses faster than 300 ms (less than 1% of the data) were excluded from the analyses.</p> <p>Response times were log‐transformed to correct for proportional group differences in overall response times and rescaled to a common metric that allows for more reliable identification of group differences (Baayen, Feldman, & Schreuder, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Mean latencies and error rates are reported in Table [NaN] . The RT results showed a strong effect of Group in both the analyses by participants (F1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref50">57</reflink>) = 14.07, MSe = 0.01, p < 0.001) and by items (F2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref52">38</reflink>) = 15.88, MSe = 0.001, p < 0.001). The results also showed a strong BF effect (F1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref54">57</reflink>) = 27.98, MSe = 0.01, p < 0.01; F2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>) = 9.24, MSe = 0.003, p < 0.005). The interaction between these variables was significant in the analysis by participants (F1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref58">57</reflink>) = 6.44, MSe = 0.007, p < 0.05) and marginally significant by items (F2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref60">38</reflink>) = 3.88, MSe = 0.005, p = 0.056). The interaction is shown in Figure [NaN] . A planned comparison, carried out on participant mean scores, showed that the BF effect was significant in the case of the oldest skilled readers (p < 0.001), close to significant in younger children (p = 0.07), but not significant in children with reading difficulties (p = 0.1).</p> <p>Mean response latencies (in millisecond) and mean error rates (out of total stimuli) per experimental condition (standard deviations in brackets).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Group</th><th align="center">BF</th><th align="center">Response latencies</th><th align="center">Errors</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading disabled children</td><td align="char" char=".">High BF</td><td align="char" char=".">1983 (311)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.3 (2.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Low BF</td><td align="char" char=".">2068 (298)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3 (2.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Skilled children matched on vocabulary size</td><td align="char" char=".">High BF</td><td align="char" char=".">1897 (350)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.0 (2.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Low BF</td><td align="char" char=".">1974 (324)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.2 (3.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Skilled children matched on chronological age</td><td align="char" char=".">High BF</td><td align="char" char=".">1459 (249)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.8 (1.7)</td></tr><tr><td align="char" char=".">Low BF</td><td align="char" char=".">1670 (236)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.5 (1.6)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 BF, base frequency</p> <p>Analysis of error rates showed a Group effect in the analysis by participants (F1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>) = 7.95, MSe = 7.86, p < 0.05) but not in the analyses by items (F2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref64">38</reflink>) = 2.45, MSe = 3.7, p < 2). The BF effect failed to reach significance in either the analyses by participants (F1(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref66">57</reflink>) = 3.34, MSe = 3.41, p = 0.07) or by items (F2(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref68">38</reflink>) = 3.34, MSe = 29.5, p = 0.075). The interaction between these variables was not significant (F<subs>s</subs> < 1).</p> <p>To assess the potential mediating role of N and suffix productivity on the significant difference between high BF and low BF stimuli (see description of Stimuli and Table [NaN] ), we performed an analysis of covariance on mean RTs of items with N and suffix productivity as covariates. The results showed effects for Group, BF and a Group × BF interaction that were similar to those obtained with the previous ANOVAs. The effects of N and suffix productivity were far from significant (both F<subs>s</subs> < 1). Therefore, the analysis of covariance confirmed that differences in N and suffix productivity between conditions did not have a significant impact on the reported results.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-8">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The results of the lexical decision experiment showed significant effects for Group, with BF effects limited to decision latencies. The effect of Group indicates that older skilled readers were faster and more accurate than both younger skilled readers and children with reading disabilities.</p> <p>The BF effect on RTs suggests that children were sensitive to the morphological manipulation. However, the significant interaction between Group and BF showed that only the older skilled readers, matched to children with reading difficulties on chronological age, were sensitive to the BF effect. This result indicates that only children with faster processing abilities and a large enough vocabulary may benefit from the frequency of the base, suggesting that morphological processing becomes particularly relevant as children and their vocabularies grow.</p> <p>In contrast to the results from the present study, no significant interaction between reading ability and BF was found by Lázaro ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>] ) in a pseudoword definitions task, with Spanish children of the same age as the ones participating in the present study. The difference in the results of these studies might be due to the different tasks employed. The definition task adopted by Lázaro ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>] ) is performed without a time limit and relies mainly on semantic processing. It is therefore suitable for use with readers with dyslexia, who can benefit from additional time to access the orthographic forms corresponding to morphemes, and process their meanings and the meaning of the resulting combination. In comparison, lexical decision is very demanding for reading disabled children. It is typically performed under time pressure, which imposes heavy constraints on the disabled readers who have a limited capacity for building the correct word form to access the lexicon. This makes the discrimination process particularly difficult, especially in cases where nonwords are particularly word‐like[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>] (Balota & Chumbley, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>] ; Plaut, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>] ). Under such time constraints, reading disabled children may not be able to fully parse a morphologically complex word into morphemes, even when the stem has a high frequency of occurrence. In contrast, skilled readers are more efficient at the morphological segmentation stage of processing, which for some authors is mandatory when making a lexical decision on low‐frequency morphologically complex words (e.g. Duñabeitia, Perea, & Carreiras, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref74">16</reflink>] ; Meunier & Longtin, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref75">30</reflink>] ; Schreuder, Burani, & Baayen, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref76">35</reflink>] ). Skilled readers can thus benefit from the BF effect more than children with reading disabilities in a lexical decision task.</p> <p>Overall, our data fit well with the view that morphological processing becomes more efficient as children and their vocabularies grow. However, the present results do not necessarily contradict the idea that morphological processing is a process that younger and reading disabled children may employ to compensate for their reading difficulties when performing a different task such as reading aloud (see e.g. Burani, Marcolini, De Luca, & Zoccolotti, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref77">11</reflink>] ; Elbro & Arnbak, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>] ; Marcolini, Traficante, Zoccolotti, & Burani, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>] ). For example, Marcolini et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref80">27</reflink>] ) reported data to support this compensatory strategy view in a study with Italian children carried out with three groups of participants (reading disabled children, young skilled readers and adults). The results from a reading aloud paradigm showed that children with a reading disorder always named complex words faster than simple words, irrespective of the word's surface frequency. In contrast, skilled readers showed shorter naming latencies for complex words than for simple words, but only when they had a low frequency, whereas naming latencies for simple and complex words did not differ when words had a high surface frequency. In adults, no differences were found between simple and complex words under any word frequency condition. From these results, Marcolini et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>] ) concluded that in languages with a transparent orthography such as Italian and Spanish, children with reading disorders may compensate for their difficulties in reading the word as a whole form by relying on morphemes. Morphemes provide shorter reading units for readers with a limited capacity of orthographic processing. Morpheme‐based reading aloud would thus be an efficient strategy and less prominent in adults and skilled child readers because skilled readers would rely more on whole word reading (Burani et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref82">11</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Similar to lexical decision tasks, reading aloud is usually performed within strict time limitations. Why should then morphological processing be present and beneficial to less skilled readers in reading aloud, but not in lexical decision tasks? To address this question, the different requirements of the two tasks – reading aloud and lexical decision – should be considered. In the reading aloud task, naming times are registered at the onset of pronunciation and measure the time taken by the reader to initiate pronunciation. When long stimuli are presented to be read aloud, the child with a reading disability may benefit from the morphological composition of the stimulus, by starting pronunciation on the basis of the initial lexical unit (the stem morpheme) only, without necessarily processing the entire stimulus (Traficante, Marcolini, Luci, Zoccolotti, & Burani, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref83">39</reflink>] ). Thus, children with reading difficulties may obtain faster naming times for morphologically complex stimuli by relying on the stem morpheme only, relative to stimuli of similar length that have no morphological constituents (Burani et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>] ; Marcolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>] ). In contrast, when making lexical decisions for morphologically complex stimuli, the reader must process both constituents of the stimulus (the stem and the suffix) to be able to correctly decide on the lexicality of that combination. For reading disabled children, the necessity to process the whole stimulus may thus result in similar difficulties when deciding on long words, irrespective of their morphological constituents.</p> <p>Additional research is necessary to better understand morphological processing in children. From our point of view, a key issue for further research is the relationship between the experimental task and the results obtained. To test the validity of different accounts, the differences between the experimental tasks investigated in children must be taken into account.</p> <hd id="AN0088905060-9">A Appendix</hd> <hd id="AN0088905060-10">STIMULI OF THE EXPERIMENT</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="center">Low BF</th><th align="center">High BF</th><th align="center">Pseudowords</th><th align="center">Pseudowords</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Frutero (fruiterer)</td><td align="left">Ayudante (helper)</td><td align="left">Dutarero</td><td align="left">Canrante</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pescador (fisherman)</td><td align="left">Bañista (bather)</td><td align="left">Prafera</td><td align="left">Calizeta</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Moraleja (moral of a fable)</td><td align="left">Jardinero (gardener)</td><td align="left">Refante</td><td align="left">Linviador</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Codera (patch)</td><td align="left">Pensador (thinker)</td><td align="left">Diresdor</td><td align="left">Arpitud</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Tramposo (cheater)</td><td align="left">Obrero (worker)</td><td align="left">Todil</td><td align="left">Mufical</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inventor (inventor)</td><td align="left">Papelera (paper bin)</td><td align="left">Anibado</td><td align="left">Camejero</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Simpleza (simplicity)</td><td align="left">Librero (book seller)</td><td align="left">Carfero</td><td align="left">Amarítica</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Olvidadizo (forgetful)</td><td align="left">Cocinero (Cook)</td><td align="left">Patelera</td><td align="left">Pantacal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cucharada (tablespoon)</td><td align="left">Limpiador (cleaner)</td><td align="left">Jadaza</td><td align="left">Monrañoso</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pegajoso (sticky)</td><td align="left">Mentiroso (liar)</td><td align="left">Esdribura</td><td align="left">Perodazo</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Aceitoso (oily)</td><td align="left">Telefonista (telephonist)</td><td align="left">Gransura</td><td align="left">Guanpazo</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Temible (fearsome)</td><td align="left">Cabezazo (header)</td><td align="left">Llumioso</td><td align="left">Jufador</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Estacazo (stake blow)</td><td align="left">Lechoso (milky)</td><td align="left">Visidor</td><td align="left">Hojecero</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vigilancia (vigilance)</td><td align="left">Pobreza (poverty)</td><td align="left">Confinenta</td><td align="left">Mampilla</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Grasiento (greasy)</td><td align="left">Peludo (hairy)</td><td align="left">Vienzoso</td><td align="left">Vencabal</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Montaje (assembly)</td><td align="left">Golpazo (great blow)</td><td align="left">Lumero</td><td align="left">Jepatura</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Coronilla (nape)</td><td align="left">Rojez (redness)</td><td align="left">Amilismo</td><td align="left">Pasablero</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Patinaje (skating)</td><td align="left">Flautista (flautist)</td><td align="left">Guetilla</td><td align="left">Cancefoso</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pelotazo (ball blow)</td><td align="left">Orejera (earmuff)</td><td align="left">Pabador</td><td align="left">Espartera</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Carruaje (carriage)</td><td align="left">Montañero (mountaineer)</td><td align="left">Sabonera</td><td align="left">Baidatín</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>BF, base frequency</p> <ref id="AN0088905060-11"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref24" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>A post hoc comparison showed that the bigram frequencies of the two types of stimuli (words and nonwords) were very similar (t(39) = 0.16, p > 0.5). </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0088905060-12"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibtext>Alameda, J., & Cuetos, F. ( 1995 ). Diccionario de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano. Oviedo : Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Andrews, S. ( 1997 ). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 439 – 461. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref48" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. F., & Schreuder, R. ( 2006 ). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 290 – 313. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. ( 1984 ). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340 – 357. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. ( 2000a ). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: get by with little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287 – 296. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. ( 2000b ). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489 – 511. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. ( 2012 ). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1306 – 1326. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Booij, G. ( 2002 ). The morphology of Dutch. Oxford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref47" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Bosque, I., & Pérez, M. ( 1987 ). Diccionario inverso de la lengua Española. Madrid : Gredos. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref26" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. ( 1987 ). Representation and processing of derived words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 3, 217 – 227. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref77" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Burani, C., Marcolini, S., De Luca M., & Zoccolotti, P. ( 2008 ). Morpheme‐based reading aloud: evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108, 243 – 268. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref7" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Carlisle, J. F. ( 2000 ). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 160 – 190. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref8" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Carlisle, J. F. & Stone, C. A. ( 2005 ). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428 – 449. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref32" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. ( 2007 ). PROLEC‐R: batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores. Madrid : TEA ediciones. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref17" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Davies, R., Cuetos, F., & Glez‐Seijas, R. M. ( 2007 ). Reading development and dyslexia in a transparent orthography: a survey of Spanish children. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 179 – 198. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref74" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. ( 2008 ). Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 1002 – 1020. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref4" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Ehri, L. C. ( 1998 ). Grapheme phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3 – 40 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref78" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. ( 1996 ). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209 – 240. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref27" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen‐Wilson, W. ( 2010 ). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117 – 130. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref9" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>García, J. N., & González, L. ( 2006 ) Diferencias en la conciencia morfológica, la escritura y el lenguaje en función del desarrollo y el nivel educativo. Psicothema, 18, 171 – 179. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref10" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Kieffer, M., & Lesaux, N. ( 2008 ). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish‐speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21, 783 – 804. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref11" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade‐Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. ( 2012 ). Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25, 389 – 410. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref28" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Lázaro, M. ( 2012a ). The effects of base frequency and affix productivity in Spanish: evidence for different processing of complex words according to their morphological characteristics. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 505 – 512. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref16" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Lázaro, M. ( 2012b ). A study of base frequency in Spanish skilled and reading disabled children: all children benefit from morphological processing in defining complex pseudowords. Dyslexia, 18, 130 – 138. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref33" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Lee, J. ( 2011 ). Size matters: early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32, 69 – 92. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref37" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Lunn, L. M., Lunn, L. & Arribas, D. ( 2011 ). Peabody: test de vocabulario en imágenes. Madrid : TEA ediciones. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref79" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. ( 2011 ). Word frequency modulates morpheme‐based reading in poor and skilled Italian readers. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32, 513 – 532. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref45" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Martínez, J., & García, E. ( 2004 ). Frecuencias del castellano escrito en niños de 6 a 12 años. Salamanca : Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontificia. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref5" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>McBride‐Chang, C., Wagner, R., Muse, A., Chow, B., & Shu, H. ( 2005 ). The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 26, 415 – 435. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref75" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Meunier, F., & Longtin, M. ( 2007 ). Morphological decomposition and semantic integration in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457 – 471. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref36" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. ( 2010 ). A not‐so‐simple view of reading: how oral vocabulary and visual‐word recognition complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23, 189 – 208. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref23" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Plaut, D. ( 1997 ). Structure and function in the lexical system: insights from distributed models of word reading and lexical decision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 12, 765 – 805. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref6" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Ramírez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. ( 2010 ). Morphological awareness in Spanish‐English bilingual children: within and cross‐language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing, 23, 337 – 358. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref2" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Rey‐Debove, J. ( 1984 ). Le domaine de la morphologie lexicale. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 45, 3 – 19. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref76" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Schreuder, R., Burani, C., & Baayen, R. H. ( 2003 ). Parsing and semantic opacity. In: E. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Morphology and the mental lexicon (pp. 14 – 49 ). Dordrecht : Kluwer. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref13" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Seymour, P. H. ( 1997 ). Foundations of orthographic development. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 319 – 337 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref34" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K. E. ( 1986 ). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360 – 406. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref3" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Thornton, A. M., Iacobini, C., & Burani, C. ( 1997 ). BDVDB Una base di dati sul vocabolario di base della lingua Italiana [BDVDB: a database for the Italian basic dictionary]. Roma, Bulzoni. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref83" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Traficante, D., Marcolini, S., Luci, A., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. ( 2011 ). How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: a study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Language & Cognitive Processes, 26, 777 – 793. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref35" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. ( 2008 ). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: a longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407 – 423. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref18" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, M., Judica, A., & Burani, C. ( 2006 ). Delayed naming cancels the word length effect in developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 99, 36 – 37. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Group by base frequency (HF = high frequency; LF = low frequency) interaction on response latencies (millisecond).</p> <aug> <p>By Miguel Lázaro; Lourdes Camacho and Cristina Burani</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref50"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1014520
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Morphological Processing in Reading Disabled and Skilled Spanish Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lazaro%2C+Miguel%22">Lazaro, Miguel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Camacho%2C+Lourdes%22">Camacho, Lourdes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burani%2C+Cristina%22">Burani, Cristina</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Dyslexia%22"><i>Dyslexia</i></searchLink>. Aug 2013 19(3):178-188.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2013
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Processing%22">Language Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reaction+Time%22">Reaction Time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphemes%22">Morphemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish+Speaking%22">Spanish Speaking</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Peabody+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/dys.1458
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1076-9242
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article presents the results of a lexical decision experiment in which the base frequency (BF) effect is explored in reading disabled children and skilled readers. Three groups of participants were created. The first group was composed of children with reading disorders, the second group of skilled readers matched with the first group for chronological age and the third group of skilled readers matched for vocabulary size. The results of the experiment showed strong effects for Group, BF and also for the Group by BF interaction. Children matched for chronological age with children with reading disorders were significantly faster and more accurate than children of the other groups, who did not show any difference from each other. The effect of BF showed that children responded faster to stimuli composed of frequent bases than to stimuli with less frequent bases. However, the analysis of the interaction between Group and BF showed that only the skilled readers matched to children with reading disorders for chronological age benefited from the BF effect. The results of the experiment are discussed in the framework of theoretical accounts of morphological processing in children as well as considering the role played by the experimental task. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 41
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2014
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1014520
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1014520
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/dys.1458
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 178
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reaction Time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphemes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish Speaking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Morphological Processing in Reading Disabled and Skilled Spanish Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lazaro, Miguel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Camacho, Lourdes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burani, Cristina
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2013
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1076-9242
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Dyslexia
              Type: main
ResultId 1