Spelling in Children With Dyslexia: Analyses From the Treiman-Bourassa Early Spelling Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the oral and written spelling performance on the Treiman-Bourassa Early Spelling Test (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000a) of 30 children with serious reading and spelling problems and 30 spelling-level-matched younger children who were pro-gressing normally in learning to read and spell. The 2 groups ’ spellings were equiva-lent on a composite measure of phonological and orthographic sophistication, repre-sentation of the phonological skeleton of the items, and orthographic legality. The groups showed a similar advantage for words over nonwords on the phonological skeleton and orthographic legality measures. The children with dyslexia and the com-parison children also showed an equivalent advantage for written over oral spelling on the composite and phonological skeleton measures. Further analyses revealed that children with dyslexia made many of the same linguistically based errors as typically developing children but also pointed to some subtle differences between the groups. Overall, the spelling performance of children with dyslexia appears to be quite similar to that of normally progressing younger children. Children with developmental dyslexia have great difficulty learning to read and write, despite normal intelligence, adequate learning opportunities, and no serious emotional or personality disorders. To illuminate the causes of these problems, re-
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it