Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of text-to-speech features on the reading comprehension of children with reading and language difficulties

  • Published:
Annals of Dyslexia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the reading comprehension scores of students with reading and language difficulties after reading a passage with and without text-to-speech (TTS). Students, ages 8 to 12 years, read five passages under the following conditions: (a) silent read, (b) read aloud, (c) listen only, (d) TTS with no highlighting, and (e) TTS with highlighting. Students answered multiple-choice comprehension questions following each condition. Mixed ANOVAs were performed to determine whether TTS improved reading comprehension. TTS significantly improved comprehension in comparison to no TTS, and specifically, TTS with no highlighting and TTS with highlighting resulted in significantly higher comprehension scores compared to silent read. No other significant differences were found across conditions including between the presentational features of TTS, specifically TTS with no highlighting and TTS with highlighting conditions. Students were grouped as dyslexia only or reading and language impairment based on their test results. Findings suggested that students with dyslexia only scored significantly higher on reading comprehension questions in all reading conditions and derived significantly more benefit in reading comprehension from TTS and the listen only condition compared to students with Reading and Language Impairment. Overall, TTS may be a helpful tool for supporting the reading comprehension of students with reading and language difficulties, particularly for students with dyslexia only; however, further studies are needed to explore the benefits of TTS’ presentational features such as highlighting with students with reading and language difficulties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley, S., & Lindstrom, J. H. (2011). Technology for the struggling readers: Free and easily accessible resources. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 441–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, Z. (2002). Asynchrony of visual-orthographic and auditory-phonological word recognition processes: An underlying factor in dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, Z., & Misra, M. (2003). Speed of processing of the visual-orthographic and auditory-phonological systems in adult dyslexics: The contribution of “asynchrony” to word recognition deficits. Brain. Language, 85, 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00071-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2000). Test of non-verbal intelligence-Fourth edition (TONI-4). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunow, D. A., & Cullen, T. A. (2021). Effect of text-to-speech and human reader on listening comprehension for students with learning disabilities. Computers in the Schools, 38(3), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2021.1953362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., & Fox, A. C. (2016). Reading self-efficacy predicts word reading but not comprehension in both girls and boys. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence form a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0304_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Adlof, S., Weismer, S. E., & Ellis, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders. A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388/2006/023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Compton, D., Tomblin, B., & Bridges, M. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction., 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappe, P., Chiappe, D. L., & Gottardo, A. (2004). Vocabulary, context, and speech perception among good and poor readers. Educational Psychology, 24, 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.1.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkind, J. (1998). A study of the efficacy of the Kurzweil 3000 reading machine in enhancing poor reading performance. Portola Valley, CA: Lexia Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, L. J., Zheng, X., & Swanson, H. I. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. D., Skinner, C. H., Winn, B. D., Oliver, R., Allin, J. D., & Molloy, C. M. (2005). An investigation of listening and listening-while-reading accommodations on reading comprehension levels and rates in students with emotional disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and orthographic processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouk, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for teaching teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecker, L., Burns, L., Elkind, J., Elkind, K., & Katz, L. (2002). Benefits of assistive reading software for students with attention disorders. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 243–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8(2), 75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodapp, J. B., & Rachow, C. (2010). Impact of text-to-speech software on access to print: A longitudinal study. In S. Seok, E. E. Meyen, & B. DaCosta (Eds.), Handbook of research on human cognition & assistive technology (pp. 199–219). Hershey, PA: Medical Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Dyslexia Association (2002). http://www.interdys.org/FAQWhatIs.htm. Accessed 1 June 2022.

  • Keelor, J., Creaghead, N., Silbert, N., Breit-Smith, A., & Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2018). Language, reading, and executive function measures as predictors of comprehension using text-to-speech. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(5), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1486764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keelor, J., Creaghead, N., Silbert, N., Breit-Smith, A., & Horowitz-Kraus, T. (2020). Text-to-speech technology: Enhancing reading comprehension for students with reading difficulty. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 14, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationship of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 300–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). Modality and redundancy effects, and their relation to executive functioning in children with dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 90, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). Learning to read: Should we keep things simple? Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-Fifth edition. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, N. K., & Bouck, E. C. (2014). The impact of text-to-speech on expository reading foradolescents with LD. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434140290010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., Cocksey, J., Taylor, J. S. H., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(9), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics (2019). The NAEP reading report card. Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cnb.pdf

  • Paige, D. D., Grant, G. S., Rasinski, T. V., Rupley, W. H., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Nichols, W. D. (2019). A path analytic model linking foundational skills to Grade 3 state reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1445609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. J., Takahashi, K., Roberts, K. D., & Delise, D. (2017). Effects of text-to-speech software use on the reading proficiency of high school struggling readers. Assistive Technology, 29(3), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1171808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, M. (2012). The future of text-to-speech technology: How long before it’s just one more thing we do when teaching reading? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1420–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., Paduk, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Hein, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100104.1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sainio, P. J., Eklund, K. M., Ahonen, T. P. S., & Kiuru, N. H. (2019). The role of learning difficulties in adolescents’ academic emotions and academic achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(4), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419841567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, A. J., Hale, A., McCallum, E., & Mauck, B. (2011). Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting: Is listening-while-reading sufficient to improve factual and inferential comprehension? Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The contribution of executive function to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802220029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvestri, R., Holmes, A., & Rahemtulla, R. (2021). The interaction of cognitive profiles and text-to-speech software on reading comprehension of adolescents with reading challenges. Journal of Special Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, D., Youssef, G. J., Sanson, A., Prior, M., Toumbourou, J. W., & Olsson, C. A. (2017). Consequences of childhood reading difficulties and behavior problems for educational achievement and employment in early adulthood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 288–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrell, C. A., Bell, S. M., & McCallum, S. (2007). Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: A preliminary study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340702200101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strangman, N., & Dalton, B. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545–569). Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, I., Nordström, T., Lindeblad, E., Gustafson, S., Björn, M., Sand, C., Almgren-Bäck, G., & Nilsson, S. (2019). Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 43, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., & Siegel, L. (2001). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Issues in Education: Contributions of Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamura, N., Castles, A., & Nation, K. (2017). Orthographic learning, fast and slow: Lexical competition effects reveal the time course of word learning in developing readers. Cognition, 163, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.002.9841567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator, 28, 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 307–331). York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2002). Test of word reading efficiency- Second edition (TOWRE-2). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. I. (2000). Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension (TOSREC). Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C.A., & Pearson, N.I. (2013). Comprehensive test of phonological processing-Second edition (CTOPP-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed

  • Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children -Fourth edition (WISC-IV). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (5th ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W. (2011). Woodcock reading mastery test-Third edition (WRMT-III). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, School of Education, Mount St. Joseph University, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati, OH, 45233, USA

    Jennifer L. Keelor

  2. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA

    Nancy A. Creaghead, Noah H. Silbert & Allison D. Breit

  3. Communication Sciences Research Center, Reading and Literacy Discovery Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA

    Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus

  4. Faculty of Education in Science and Technology, Educational Neuroimaging Center, Technion, Haifa, Israel

    Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Keelor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy A. Creaghead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noah H. Silbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allison D. Breit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tzipi Horowitz-Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Keelor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keelor, J.L., Creaghead, N.A., Silbert, N.H. et al. Impact of text-to-speech features on the reading comprehension of children with reading and language difficulties. Ann. of Dyslexia 73, 469–486 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-023-00281-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-023-00281-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation