ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Spelling-to-pronunciation transparency ratings for the 20,000 most frequently written English words.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling item-level variance of polysyllabic word reading in developing readers: Exploring semantically related child, word, and child-by-word predictors.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2024Article
- Modeling Item-Level Spelling Variance in Adults: Providing Further Insights into Lexical Quality.Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Given English orthography's quasi-regular nature, applying common decoding rules to a word does not always result in a correct pronunciation matching the stored phonological form (e.g., the word tongue). To arrive at a correct pronunciation, developing readers must make the match between a decoded pronunciation and a word's correct pronunciation stored in memory. Developmentally, this matching process varies as a function of child skill (e.g., decoding, vocabulary) and word characteristics (e.g., spelling-to-pronunciation transparency, concreteness), with each being continuously distributed. Spelling-to-pronunciation transparency ratings represent a global measure of the ease of arriving at a word's correct pronunciation from its decoded pronunciation and in experimental studies has been shown to be a critical dimension in assessing the difficulty of a word for developing readers (e.g., Steacy et al., 2022a, 2022b). This study aimed to create a database of spelling-to-pronunciation transparency ratings for the 23,282 most frequently written English words, made available in the supplemental materials for future analyses. We asked adults to rate words' spelling-to-pronunciation transparency on a scale of 1-6 (1 = very easy to match, 6 = very difficult). Results of multiple regression analyses revealed variance in ratings to be unaccounted for by other word features, demonstrating the uniqueness of these ratings. Furthermore, words that are considered irregular, classified previously as strange, or contained at least one schwa received higher ratings, demonstrating strong associations between transparency and regularity. Lastly, these ratings significantly predicted both adult word naming time and child word reading accuracy above and beyond other word features known to predict reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37587326What 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.