A Comparison of the Reading Motivation and Reading Attitude of Students with Dyslexia and Students without Dyslexia in the Elementary Schools in Ilam, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to compare reading motivation and reading attitude of students with dyslexia andstudents without dyslexia. The population of the study included 138 students with dyslexia studying inelementary schools in Ilam, Iran. Within this population, the researcher randomly selected 30 students for thepilot study. The remaining 108 dyslexic students were selected as the sample size but only 80 students withdyslexia participated in this study as the parents of the other and 28 parents’ of students with dyslexia did notallowed their children to participate. The researcher also selected 80 normal students who had been homogenizedand compared using the attitude and motivation scales. The reliability of the reading motivation and readingattitude scales was confirmed. The content validity of the scales was investigated using the judgment of 10psychology experts. The analysis of the findings through independent t-test showed a significant differencebetween the students with dyslexia and the students without dyslexia at ?<0.000.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".