MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phonological Awareness and Rapid Naming Skills of Children with Reading Disabilities and Children with Reading Disabilities Who Are At Risk for Mathematics Difficulties

2008· article· en· W2056175848 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Disabilities Research and Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPhonological awarenessReading (process)PercentilePsychologyLearning disabilityDevelopmental psychologyAt-risk studentsMathematics educationMathematicsLiteracyStatisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited research has examined the skills of children with a reading disability (RD) and children with RD and a mathematics disability (MD). Even less research has examined the phonological awareness (PA) and rapid automatized naming (RAN) skills in these two groups of children and how these skills relate to reading and math achievement. Additionally, various classification criteria are frequently implemented to classify children with MD. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the PA and RAN skills in children who met different criteria for RD only and children with RD who are at risk for mathematics difficulties (MDR). Participants were 114 second‐ or third‐grade students with RD from public elementary schools in three large metropolitan areas. Students were classified as at risk for mathematics difficulties utilizing a 25th‐percentile cutoff and a 15th‐percentile cutoff as assessed by the KeyMath‐Revised Test ( Connolly, 1988 ). A series of PA and RAN measures were administered along with a range of reading and mathematics measures. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that children with RD only evidenced a different pattern of results compared to children with RD + MDR. Additionally, using a more stringent criterion to classify children at risk for mathematics difficulties resulted in a differential pattern of results when compared to a less stringent classification criterion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.308 · 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