ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Reactivity of the triple task on writing processes and product in adults with dyslexia.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The triple task (TT) is a method for assessing the dynamics of writing processes. It involves three tasks in one: writing a text, responding to a sound, and reporting the process. Previous research has mostly shown that the TT does not affect the writing process or the product. However, individuals with dyslexia often show difficulties in tasks that require organization, automation, integration of multiple processes, inhibition, and shifting/cognitive flexibility. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate whether TT affects the writing process and written product differently in adults with dyslexia compared to a control group of adults with typical reading skills. Methods: Two groups of adult native Croatian speakers were included in this study: 20 adults with developmental dyslexia and 20 adults with typical reading skills; evenly distributed by: age (18-38 years), gender (13 males, 7 females per group), educational level, and nonverbal cognitive abilities. All participants wrote one text with a TT and another without. The writing of the text was tracked with a keystroke logging program - Inputlog. The two texts were compared at process and product level. Results and discussion: The results showed that measures of writing processes and text quality in the groups of adults with dyslexia and adults with typical reading skills were unlikely to be differentially affected by TT. However, in the condition without TT, the total number of characters per minute was higher, more keys were typed per minute and more words were deleted. As expected, adults with dyslexia produced shorter texts of lower quality and with more errors; they also produced fewer characters per minute, used fewer keystrokes and typed fewer. Conclusion: The study suggests that TT is unlikely to have a different impact on the writing process or written product in adults with dyslexia compared to adults with typical reading skills.
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.