ArticleResearch square2026
Phonological decoding and orthographic learning in poor and typical adult readers.
Article in Research square, 2026. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated whether adults with long-standing reading difficulties ("poor readers") can acquire new literacy skills in both familiar (English pseudowords) and novel (artificial orthography, AO) systems, and how phonological decoding deficits relate to orthographic learning. Poor readers (n = 17) and matched typical readers (n = 17) completed a decoding task and three orthographic learning tasks (spelling, identification, and lexical decision) in both orthographies. Results showed that poor readers achieved near-ceiling accuracy in learning novel grapheme-phoneme correspondences, yet remained less fluent than typical readers across both orthographies, even after repeated practice. Despite this persistent fluency gap, poor readers performed comparably to typical readers on measures of orthographic learning, indicating that decoding efficiency does not directly constrain orthographic acquisition under conditions of equal exposure. Exploratory cluster analyses revealed heterogeneous profiles among poor readers, with distinct constellations of cognitive strengths and weaknesses shaping decoding outcomes. These findings highlight fluency as the central bottleneck in adult literacy while demonstrating that adult readers with long-standing reading difficulties can form accurate orthographic representations through structured practice. The results also highlight the importance of considering individual variability in both research and adult literacy interventions.
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.