Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:31:27.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of reading goals on reading comprehension, reading rate, and allocation of working memory in children and adolescents with spina bifida meningomyelocele

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2010

LIANNE ENGLISH ,
MARCIA A. BARNES ,
JACK M. FLETCHER ,
MAUREEN DENNIS  and
KIMBERLY P. RAGHUBAR
LIANNE ENGLISH
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
MARCIA A. BARNES*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center, Houston, Texas Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario
JACK M. FLETCHER
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
MAUREEN DENNIS
Affiliation:
Program in Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario Departments of Psychology and Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
KIMBERLY P. RAGHUBAR
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Marcia A. Barnes, Children’s Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, 7000 Fannin Street, Suite 2431, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spina bifida meningomyelocele (SBM) is a neurodevelopmental disorder associated with intact word decoding and deficient text and discourse comprehension. This study investigated the ability to adjust reading in accordance with specified reading goals in 79 children and adolescents with SBM (9–19 years of age) and 39 controls (8–17 years of age). Both groups demonstrated slower reading times and enhanced comprehension when reading to study or to come up with a title than when reading for specific information or for entertainment. For both groups, verbal working memory contributed to comprehension performance in those reading conditions hypothesized to require more cognitive effort. Despite their sensitivity to the goals of reading, the group with SBM answered fewer comprehension questions correctly across all reading goal conditions. The results are discussed in relation to the hypothesized cognitive underpinnings of comprehension deficits in SBM and to current models of text comprehension. (JINS, 2010, 16, 517–525.)

Keywords

HydrocephalusReading comprehension strategiesNeural tube defectWorking memoryMetacognitionReading fluency
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , May 2010 , pp. 517 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: What we’ve learned since NRP. In Block, C.C., & Parris, S.R. (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices (pp. 65–79). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Baker, L., & Anderson, R. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M.A., & Dennis, M. (1992). Reading in children and adolescents after early onset hydrocephalus and in normally developing age peers: Phonological analysis, word recognition, word comprehension, and passage comprehension skill. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 17, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, M.A., & Dennis, M. (1998). Discourse after early-onset hydrocephalus: Core deficits in children of average intelligence. Brain and Language, 61, 309–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, M.A., Faulkner, H., Wilkinson, M., & Dennis, M. (2004). Meaning construction and integration in children with hydrocephalus. Brain and Language, 89, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, M.A., Faulkner, M., & Dennis, M. (2001). Poor reading comprehension despite fast word decoding in children with hydrocephalus. Brain and Language, 76, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, M.A., Huber, J., Johnston, A.M., & Dennis, M. (2007). A model of comprehension in spina bifida myelomeningocele: Meaning activation, integration, and revision. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V., Hammill, D.D., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1995). The test of reading comprehension-Third edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Cain, K. (1999). Ways of reading: How knowledge and use of strategies are related to reading comprehension. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cataldo, M.G., & Cornoldi, C. (1998). Self-monitoring in poor and good reading comprehenders and their use of strategy. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, W.M., & Levy, B.A. (2008). Developing fluent text processing with practice: Memorial influences on fluency and comprehension. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. Special Issue: Literacy Development in Canada, 49, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornoldi, C., DeBeni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (1996). Profiles of reading comprehension difficulties: An analysis of single cases. In Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp.113–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dennis, M., Edelstein, K., Copeland, K., Frederick, J., Francis, D.J., Hetherington, R., et al. (2005). Covert orienting to exogenous and endogenous cues in children with spina bifida. Neuropsychologia, 43, 976–987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennis, M., Francis, D.J., Cirino, P.T., Schachar, R., Barnes, M.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (2009). Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M., Hendrick, B.E., Hoffman, H.J., & Humphreys, R.P. (1987). Language of hydrocephalic children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 9, 593–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennis, M., Landry, S.H., Barnes, M.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (2006). A model of neurocognitive function in spina bifida over the lifespan. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 12, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp.185–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harris, P.L., Kruithof, A., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Visser, T. (1981). Children’s detection and awareness of textual anomaly. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D.L., Oppy, B.J., & Seely, M.R. (1997). Individual differences in readers’ sentence- and text-level representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorch, R.F., Lorch, E.P., & Klusewitz, M.A. (1993). College students’ conditional knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A.B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. In Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 3–40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pazzaglia, F., De Beni, R., & Cornoldi, C. (1995). Metacognitive knowledge about reading and self-esteem in poor readers. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 9, 91–117.Google Scholar
Raney, G.E. (2003). A context-dependent representation model for explaining text repetition effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorndike, R.L., Hagan, E.P., & Sattler, J.M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Fourth edition. Chicago: The Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R.F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D.N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., Pearson, P.D., & Rogers, T. (1988). What causes children’s failures to detect inconsistencies in text? representation versus comparison difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L.J., Rasmussen, S.A., Flores, A., Kirby, R.S., & Edmonds, L.D. (2005). Decline in the prevalence of spina bifida and anencephaly by race/ethnicity: 1995-2002. Pediatrics, 116, 580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R.W., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Tests of cognitive ability and tests of achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar