Reading and spelling profiles of adult poor readers: Phonological, orthographic and morphological considerations
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
Reading and spelling skills are important to communicate in today's literate society, however, the underlying processes of spelling skills are under-researched compared to reading skills. Our goals were to (a) study how the component skills of phonological, orthographic and morphological awareness are different in adults with and without reading difficulties, and (b) characterize the relationship between the component skills and reading and spelling performance in both skilled and poor readers. Participants (N = 37, N = 15 with reading impairments and N = 22 skilled readers) took part in the study where they completed several literacy-based measures. We performed a series of mixed ANOVAs to study the between-group differences in performance and the relationship between different literacy outcomes, respectively. We found evidence for poor phonological and morphological awareness in the poor readers compared to the skilled readers. We also found differential relationships between the component skills and reading and spelling behavior. Specifically, sound awareness was significantly related to reading and spelling measures in the skilled readers, whereas morphological and sound awareness played an important role in the same skills in the poor readers. We discuss these findings in the context of potential remediation strategies for adults with persistent literacy impairments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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