Word and Person Effects on Decoding Accuracy: A New Look at an Old Question.

Jennifer K Gilbert, Donald L Compton, Devin M Kearns
Author Information
  1. Jennifer K Gilbert: Vanderbilt University.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to extend the literature on decoding by bringing together two lines of research, namely person and word factors that affect decoding, using a crossed random-effects model. The sample was comprised of 196 English-speaking grade 1 students. A researcher-developed pseudoword list was used as the primary outcome measure. Because grapheme-phoneme correspondence (GPC) knowledge was treated as person and word specific, we are able to conclude that it is neither necessary nor sufficient for a student to know all GPCs in a word before accurately decoding the word. And controlling for word-specific GPC knowledge, students with lower phonemic awareness and slower rapid naming skill have lower predicted probabilities of correct decoding than counterparts with superior skills. By assessing a person-by-word interaction, we found that students with lower phonemic awareness have more difficulty applying knowledge of complex vowel graphemes compared to complex consonant graphemes when decoding unfamiliar words. Implications of the methodology and results are discussed in light of future research.

References

  1. Psychol Res. 1981;43(2):219-34 [PMID: 7302091]
  2. Cognition. 1995 May;55(2):151-218; discussion 219-26 [PMID: 7789090]
  3. Psychol Rev. 1982 Jan;89(1):60-94 [PMID: 7058229]
  4. J Learn Disabil. 2000 Jul-Aug;33(4):322-4 [PMID: 15493094]
  5. Cognition. 2000 Feb 14;74(2):177-208 [PMID: 10617781]
  6. Behav Res Methods. 2007 Feb;39(1):101-17 [PMID: 17552476]
  7. Mem Cognit. 1990 Nov;18(6):559-67 [PMID: 2266857]
  8. J Speech Hear Disord. 1988 May;53(2):125-30 [PMID: 3361854]
  9. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2001 Aug;45(Pt 4):292-9 [PMID: 11489050]
  10. Multivariate Behav Res. 2004 Jan 1;39(1):129-49 [PMID: 26759936]
  11. Mem Cognit. 1990 Jul;18(4):419-27 [PMID: 2381320]
  12. Psychol Bull. 2005 Jan;131(1):3-29 [PMID: 15631549]
  13. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2007 Jul;24(5):471-84 [PMID: 18416502]
  14. J Learn Disabil. 2000 Jul-Aug;33(4):325-33, 374 [PMID: 15493095]
  15. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2005 May;58(Pt 1):145-72 [PMID: 15969844]
  16. J Exp Child Psychol. 1999 Feb;72(2):95-129 [PMID: 9927525]
  17. Multivariate Behav Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;44(2):182-212 [PMID: 26754266]
  18. Psychol Rev. 1998 Jan;105(1):158-73 [PMID: 9450375]
  19. Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;134(4):584-615 [PMID: 18605821]
  20. Mem Cognit. 2001 Jan;29(1):1-9 [PMID: 11277452]
  21. J Exp Child Psychol. 1999 Jul;73(3):208-42 [PMID: 10357873]

Grants

  1. R01 HD056109/NICHD NIH HHS
  2. R01 HD056109-03/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0decodingwordstudentsknowledgelowerresearchpersonGPCphonemicawarenesscomplexgraphemespurposestudyextendliteraturebringingtogethertwolinesnamelyfactorsaffectusingcrossedrandom-effectsmodelsamplecomprised196English-speakinggrade1researcher-developedpseudowordlistusedprimaryoutcomemeasuregrapheme-phonemecorrespondencetreatedspecificableconcludeneithernecessarysufficientstudentknowGPCsaccuratelycontrollingword-specificslowerrapidnamingskillpredictedprobabilitiescorrectcounterpartssuperiorskillsassessingperson-by-wordinteractionfounddifficultyapplyingvowelcomparedconsonantunfamiliarwordsImplicationsmethodologyresultsdiscussedlightfutureWordPersonEffectsDecodingAccuracy:NewLookOldQuestion

Similar Articles

Cited By