ArticleJournal of learning disabilities
Sequential Prediction of Literacy Achievement for Specific Learning Disabilities Contrasting in Impaired Levels of Language in Grades 4 to 9.
Article in Journal of learning disabilities. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering subgroup heterogeneity in dyslexia intervention outcomes using explainable machine learning.NPJ science of learning · 2026Article
- Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning.International journal of school & educational psychology · 2019Article
- Why Children With Dyslexia Struggle With Writing and How to Help Them.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2018Review
- Emotional and Behavioral Correlates of Persisting Specific Learning Disabilities in Written Language during Middle Childhood and Early Adolescence.Journal of psychoeducational assessment · 2018Article
- Effective Instruction for Persisting Dyslexia in Upper Grades: Adding Hope Stories and Computer Coding to Explicit Literacy Instruction.Education and information technologies · 2018Article
- Brain's functional network clustering coefficient changes in response to instruction (RTI) in students with and without reading disabilities: Multi-leveled reading brain's RTI.Cogent psychology · 2018Article
- Movement Issues Identified in Movement ABC2 Checklist Parent Ratings for Students with Persisting Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD and Typical Literacy Learners.Learning disabilities (Pittsburgh, Pa.) · 2018Article
- Patterns of biomarkers for three phenotype profiles of persisting specific learning disabilities during middle childhood and early adolescence: A preliminary study.Biomarkers and genes · 2017Article
- Effects of transcription ability and transcription mode on translation:: Evidence from written compositions, language bursts and pauses when students in grades 4 to 9, with and without persisting dyslexia or dysgraphia, compose by pen or by keyboard.Journal of writing research · 2017Article
- Translating Interdisciplinary Research on Language Learning into Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities in Verbally Gifted and Average Children and Youth.Journal of behavioral and brain science · 2017Article
- Changes in DTI Diffusivity and fMRI Connectivity Cluster Coefficients for Students with and without Specific Learning Disabilities In Written Language: Brain's Response to Writing Instruction.Journal of nature and science · 2017Article
- Relationships between Eye Movements during Sentence Reading Comprehension, Word Spelling and Reading, and DTI and fmri Connectivity In Students with and without Dysgraphia or Dyslexia.Journal of systems and integrative neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sequential regression was used to evaluate whether language-related working memory components uniquely predict reading and writing achievement beyond cognitive-linguistic translation for students in Grades 4 through 9 ( N = 103) with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in subword handwriting (dysgraphia, n = 25), word reading and spelling (dyslexia, n = 60), or oral and written language (oral and written language learning disabilities, n = 18). That is, SLDs are defined on the basis of cascading level of language impairment (subword, word, and syntax/text). A five-block regression model sequentially predicted literacy achievement from cognitive-linguistic translation (Block 1); working memory components for word-form coding (Block 2), phonological and orthographic loops (Block 3), and supervisory focused or switching attention (Block 4); and SLD groups (Block 5). Results showed that cognitive-linguistic translation explained an average of 27% and 15% of the variance in reading and writing achievement, respectively, but working memory components explained an additional 39% and 27% of variance. Orthographic word-form coding uniquely predicted nearly every measure, whereas attention switching uniquely predicted only reading. Finally, differences in reading and writing persisted between dyslexia and dysgraphia, with dysgraphia higher, even after controlling for Block 1 to 4 predictors. Differences in literacy achievement between students with dyslexia and oral and written language learning disabilities were largely explained by the Block 1 predictors. Applications to identifying and teaching students with these SLDs are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.