READING TECHNOLOGY IN AN ADULT ABORIGINAL POPULATION – DOES ONE

SIZE FIT ALL?

Northern Ontario Assessment and Resource Centre

Alana Holmes, Ph.D., C.Psych

Robert Silvestri M.Ed., Ph.D. candidate

Project Funding

Aboriginal Education Office in association with:

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

Rationale for Study

Canadian Institutes of Health Report “Literacy and Health in Canada” – Aboriginal peoples in Canada have lower reading literacy scores than non-Aboriginal Canadians

1988 needs survey by M’Chigeeng First Nation – critical to establish a community based literacy program due to high rate of residents without a high school diploma

Rationale for Study

Elkind, Black, and Murray (1996) in a study of adults with reading disabilities demonstrated enhanced performance in reading speed and reading endurance when using text reading software as compared to reading unaided.

Higgins and Raskind (1997) in a study of post-secondary students with dyslexia found that disabled readers improved reading comprehension scores when utilizing text reading software.

Methodological Shortcomings

An exhaustive literature search revealed that there is a dearth of studies investigating the effects of text reading software on reading skills in Aboriginal populations.

Research Questions

Examine the efficacy of text-to-voice technology on reading comprehension performance in an Aboriginal population with self-reported reading difficulties.

Identify the cognitive correlates associated with improved reading comprehension utilizing reading technology for an Aboriginal population with self-reported reading difficulties.

Research Sample

38 Aboriginal participants with self-identified reading difficulties

Wikwemikong First Nation n = 31, M’Chigeeng First Nation (West Bay) n = 7

Mean age = 30.05 years (SD = 12.02) Mean grade level completed = 10.66 (SD = 1.83) Sex Ratio = 22 males, 16 females

Procedures

Each participant completed a variety of cognitive and reading assessments.

Participants received a training session using assistive reading technology (proficiency with software controlled)

Counterbalanced format – all participants completed reading comprehension pre and post testing with and without the use of assistive technology.

Measurements

Questionnaires:

Adult Reading History Questionnaire – Revised (Parrila, Corkett, Kirby, & Hein, 2003).

Author Recognition Test (West, Stanovich, & Mitchell, 1993).

Computer Attitude Questionnaire (Knezek & Miyashita, 1993).

Adult Reading History Questionnaire – Revised (ARHQ-R)

Author Recognition Test

Abbreviated Author Recognition Test

 

Instructions: Below you will see a list of 25 names. Some of the people in the list are popular writers (of books, magazine articles, and/or newspaper columns) and some are not. Please read the names and circle those individuals who you know to be writers. Do not guess, only circle those who you know are authors.

  

Isaac Asimov Robert Tierney

Isabel Beck J.R.R. Tolkien

 

P.E. Bryant Richard Venezky

 

Barbara Cartland Irving Wallace

 

James Clavell Joseph Wambaugh

 

Gerald Duffy Bob Woodward

 

Ian Fleming

 

Stephen J. Gould

   

Computer Attitude Questionnaire

Measurements

Cognitive Measures:

WAIS-3 (all subtests except Object Assembly) TOWRE – Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word

Efficiency C-TOPP – core subtests WIAT – word reading, reading comprehension,

and pseudoword decoding Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Test –

Form G and H comprehension tests

Research Findings

1. Self perception of reading history difficulty in elementary and secondary school accurately discriminated performance on standardized measures of reading

Phonological Processing Word Recognition

ARHQ-R Secondary School Groups

C-TOPP Phonological Awareness Composite**

WIAT Pseudoword Decoding **

TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency **

WIAT Word Reading ** TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency **

Less Problematic Reading History

106 104 95 100 93

Significant Reading History Difficulties

82 84 84 82 84

Very Significant Reading History Difficulties

73 73 66 64 67

Table 5. Adult Reading History Questionnaire - Revised Secondary School Groups and Reading Measures Standard Scores

Note: ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire Revised; C-TOPP = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency

** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table 5. Adult Reading History Questionnaire - Revised Secondary School Groups and Reading Measures Standard Scores

Rapid Naming Phonological Memory Reading Comprehension

ARHQ-R Secondary School Groups

C-TOPP Rapid Naming Composite (n.s.)

C-TOPP Phonological Memory Composite **

Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Percentile **

Less Problematic Reading History

106 97 54th

Significant Reading History Difficulties

91 88 36th

Very Significant Reading History Difficulties

97 70 25th

Note: ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire Revised; C-TOPP = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency

** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); n.s.= non-significant

Research Findings

2. Overall, participants provided more correct answers and attempted more questions on the comprehension component of the ND when reading without assistive technology; number of incorrect answers remained constant when reading with and without assistive technology

confounds = lack of computer experience *, computer anxiety*, reading exposure (ART**), automaticity concerns ( e.g., processing speed*).

** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * 0.05 level (two-tailed)

ND Comprehension Correct Answers:

M = 13.97 without technology vs. M = 10.58 with technology; p = <.01

ND Comprehension Attempts:

M = 22.47 without technology vs. M = 18.97 with technology; p=.<01

Research Findings

3. Students with a given set of cognitive characteristics, poor performance on non-word repetition and rapid naming tasks, demonstrated improvements in comprehension on the Nelson Denny when using assistive technology

Nonword Repetition groups and Nelson Denny Comprehension Performance

Low Group (below the mean)

High Group (above the mean)

Answered more questions correctly with technology

(M = 7.25 with technology vs. M = 4.25 without technology; p = <.01

Answered more questions correctly without technology

(M = 9.00 with technology vs. M = 14.57 without technology; p = < .01

Attempted more questions with technology

(M = 18.00 attempts with technology vs. M = 12.00 without technology; p =.13)

Attempted more questions without technology

(M = 16.43 with technology vs. M = 23.57 without technology; p = .02)

Higher reading comprehension percentile with technology

(M = 9th with technology vs. M = 2nd without technology; p = .01

Higher reading comprehension percentile without technology

(M = 17th with technology vs. M = 38th without technology; p = <.01

Regression Analysis of Correct Answers on Nelson Denny Comprehension Test utilizing Assistive

Technology

Predictors Significance Zero Order Correlation

Partial Correlation

Verbal Comprehension Index

.05 .57 .35

Working Memory Index

.01 .53 .44

CTOPP Memory for Digits

.01 .51 .51

CTOPP Blending Words

.01 -.06 -.71

TOWRE Sight Word

.08 .61 .32

Multiple Correlation Coefficient = .86

Regression Analysis of CTOPP Nonword Repetition Performance

Predictor Significance Zero Order Correlation

Partial Correlation

Verbal Comprehension Index

.01 .53 .45

Processing Speed Index

.01 -.19 -.52

CTOP Phoneme Elision

.01 .24 -.46

CTOPP Blending Words

.02 .42 .43

WIAT Pseudoword

.01 .56 .51

Multiple Correlation Coefficient = . 79

Significance of Nonword Repetition to Reading Comprehension utilizing AT

Assesses many of the underlying skills associated with utilizing assistive technology for reading comprehension.

1. Sound Perception – acoustic quality and phonotactic frequency (Coady et al., 2005, 2007)

2. Phonological Awareness and Processing – processing of phonemes (Bowery, 1996)

3. Phonological Memory –the ability the store phonological units (i.e., phonemes); associated with depth of vocabulary (verbal comprehension)

Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1999) and Nonword Repetition Performance

Poor NWR performance

Good NWR performance

Deficits in processing

mechanisms underlying

NWR

Have prerequisite NWR skills

Congruent with AT

instructional format

Incongruent with AT

instructional format

Intrinsic processing + instructional format = germane cognitive load

(reading comp. gains)

Intrinsic processing + instructional format = high cognitive load (expertise reversal effect)

AT - Highly structured, word-by-word reading format

Applications/Future Research

1. ARHQ-R predicted general reading difficulties in the sampled population; it holds merit as a screening tool to discern reading problems in Aboriginal adults.

2. Examining students’ phonological processing profiles prior to assigning reading technology may be a useful practice if similar results are found in a larger research sample.

3. Future studies: follow-up study with participants utilizing technology for a longer period of time.

Contact Information

Alana Holmes, Ph.D., C.Psych. – (705) 524-7397; alana.holmes@cambriancollege.ca

Robert Silvestri, M.Ed., Ph.D., candidate - (705) 524-7397; robert.silvestri@cambriancollege.ca

Research Disclaimer

The results obtained in this study are preliminary as they were obtained with a small number of research participants. These results need to be replicated with larger, heterogeneous groups before implementation into disability services or clinical practice.