ArticlePloS one2020
Predicting individual differences in reading, spelling and maths in a sample of typically developing children: A study in the perspective of comorbidity.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations Between Language, Speech Sound, and Learning Disorders.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Procedural or declarative deficit in adults with developmental dyslexia? A study of Artificial grammar learning.PloS one · 2026Article
- Impaired instance acquisition as a cause of the comorbidity of learning disorders in young adults.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Atypical characteristic changes of surface morphology and structural covariance network in developmental dyslexia.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Domain Specific and Cross Domain Associations between PASS Cognitive Processes and Academic Achievement.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- What spelling errors can tell us about the development of processes involved in children's spelling.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Interpreting Developmental Surface Dyslexia within a Comorbidity Perspective.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Attention Components and Spelling Accuracy: Which Connections Matter?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Network Analysis of the Relationship among Reading, Spelling and Maths Skills.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Ability to Consolidate Instances as a Proxy for the Association Among Reading, Spelling, and Math Learning Skill.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Do Reading and Arithmetic Fluency Share the Same Cognitive Base?Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The Relationship of Reading Abilities With the Underlying Cognitive Skills of Math: A Dimensional Approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Testing the Specificity of Predictors of Reading, Spelling and Maths: A New Model of the Association Among Learning Skills Based on Competence, Performance and Acquisition.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined reading, spelling, and mathematical skills in an unselected group of 129 Italian fifth graders by testing various cognitive predictors for each behaviour. As dependent variables, we measured performance in behaviours with a clear functional value in everyday life, such as reading a text, spelling under dictation and doing mental and written computations. As predictors, we selected cognitive dimensions having an explicit relation with the target behaviour (called proximal predictors), and prepared various tests in order to select which task had the best predictive power on each behaviour. The aim was to develop a model of proximal predictors of reading (speed and accuracy), spelling (accuracy) and maths (speed and accuracy) characterized by efficacy also in comparison to the prediction based on general cognitive factors (i.e., short-term memory, phonemic verbal fluency, visual perceptual speed, and non-verbal intelligence) and parsimony, pinpointing the role of both common and unique predictors as envisaged in the general perspective of co-morbidity. With one exception (reading accuracy), the proximal predictors models (based on communality analyses) explained a sizeable amount of variance, ranging from 27.5% in the case of calculation (accuracy) to 48.7% of reading (fluency). Models based on general cognitive factors also accounted for some variance (ranging from 6.5% in the case of spelling to 19.5% in the case of reading fluency) but this was appreciably less than that explained by models based on the hypothesized proximal predictors. In general, results confirmed the efficacy of proximal models in predicting reading, spelling and maths although they offered only limited support for common predictors across different learning skills; namely, performance in the Orthographic Decision test entered as a predictor of both reading and spelling indicating that a single orthographic lexicon may account for performance in reading and spelling. Possible lines of research to expand on this approach are illustrated.
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.