MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989803082 · doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0904.319

Reading and Phonological Awareness in Children With Down Syndrome: A Longitudinal Study

2000· article· en· W1989803082 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Kay‐Raining Bird, Patricia L. Cleave, Lyndsey McConnell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonological awarenessPsychologyReading (process)Learning to readDevelopmental psychologyCognitionLiteracyPaceLinguisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many children with Down syndrome (DS) are capable of developing some reading and writing abilities. The purpose of this study was to further the knowledge of literacy learning and factors that influence that learning in children with DS. Twelve elementary school children with DS were followed over a 4.5-year period. All the children attended regular education classrooms with personal aides and resource rooms as support. Measures of the children’s reading, language, cognitive, and phonological awareness abilities were collected three times. Analyses demonstrated that some reading ability was present in all but one of the children by the end of the study. Phonological awareness and word attack skills did not keep pace with word recognition abilities in these children. When age and mental age (i.e., the mean of the age-equivalent scores from the Pattern Analysis and Bead Memory subtests of the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, 4 th edition) were partialled out, word attack skill was uniquely predicted by measures of phoneme segmentation and auditory memory as well. Clinical implications of the findings are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations113
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207