Abstract
Experiments 1–4 examined immediate serial recall of rhyming and nonrhyming items by normal and poor readers in Grades 2–4. Children with generally low achievement were excluded from the poor-reader groups, so that the achievement deficit of the poor readers was centered in reading. The poor readers did not differ from the normal readers in their susceptibility to phonemic similarity either with letter lists or with word lists. Children low in both achievement and intelligence were included in Experiment 3, and they also showed normal susceptibility to phonemic similarity, except that phonemic-confusion effects were reduced when task-difficulty levels were high. Experiment 5 further demonstrated that the serial-recall task is relatively insensitive to phonemic-similarity effects when difficulty levels are high. Previous results suggesting that poor readers are relatively insensitive to phonemic similarity in such tasks may have been an artifactual consequence of marked differences in overall task difficulty for the groups compared. Implications of variations in sample-selection procedures also are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alegria, J., Pignot, E., &Morais, J. Phonetic analysis of speech and memory codes in beginning readers.Memory & Cognition, 1982,10, 451–456.
Baron, J., &Treiman, R. Some problems in the study of differences in cognitive processes.Memory & Cognition, 1980,14, 116–119.
Byrne, B., Shea, P. Semantic and phonetic memory codes in beginning readers.Memory & Cognition, 1979,7, 333–338.
Hall, J. W., Ewing, A., Tinzmann, M. B., &Wilson, K. P. Phonetic coding in dyslexics and normal readers.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1981,17, 177–188.
Hall, J. W., &Humphreys, M. S. Research on specific learning disabilities: Deficits and remediation.Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 1982,2, 68–78.
Loftus, G. R. On interpretation of interactions.Memory & Cognition, 1978,6, 312–319.
Mann, V. A., Liberman, I. Y., &Shankweiler, D. Children’s memory for sentences and word strings in relation to reading ability.Memory & Cognition, 1980,8, 329–335.
Morrison, F. J., &Manis, F. R. Cognitive processes and reading disability: A critique and proposal. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.),Advances in cognitive development (Vol. 2) Verbal processes in development. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Mark, L. S., Fowler, C. A., &Fischer, F. W. The speech code and learning to read.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1979,5, 531–545.
Vellutino, F. R.Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1979.
Wickelgren, W. A. Phonetic similarity and interference in short-term memory for single letters.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,71, 396–404.
Woodcock, R.W.Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Boston, Mass: Teaching Resources, 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a research contract from the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, Office of Education (US HEW OF 300 770 493) for the University of Illinois’s Chicago Institute for Learning Disabilities.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hall, J.W., Wilson, K.P., Humphreys, M.S. et al. Phonemic-similarity effects in good vs. poor readers. Memory & Cognition 11, 520–527 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196989
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196989