How Word/Non-Word Length Influence Reading Acquisition in a Transparent Language: Implications for Children’s Literacy and Development
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Brazilian Portuguese Orthography
1.2. Decoding Assessment
1.3. Empirical Implications
1.4. The Present Study
1.5. Hypotheses
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Procedures
2.1.1. Step 1: Evidence of Validity Based on Test Content
- Vowels—(a) always keep the corresponding low for exchange (/a/in an unstressed position); (b) replace the middle vowel with a middle vowel; (c) replace the high vowel with a high vowel;
- Plosives/Fricatives—replace respecting the following order of priority: point of articulation, voicing and, in case of impossibility, mode of articulation;
- Nasal—replace only the point of articulation;
- Liquid—replace lateral phonemes with non-lateral ones and vice versa.
2.1.2. Step 2: Evidence of Validity Based on Response Processes
2.1.3. Step 3: Evidence of Validity Based on Internal Consistency
3. Results
4. Summary of Findings
4.1. Hypothesis A
4.2. Hypothesis B
5. Discussion
5.1. Acquisition of Decoding Skills
5.2. Decoding Skills, Policies e Social Economical Status
5.3. Cross-Linguistic Comparisons
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. List of Words
Monosyllables | Disyllables | Trissylables | Polissylables | Polissilables-5+ |
Boi | Noite | Trânsito | Tirânico | Característica |
Fim | Caixa | Escola | Aquarela | Prejudicial |
Luz | Chuva | Repolho | Enxurrada | Maravilhosa |
Mar | Cedo | Brinquedo | Reciclagem | Experiência |
Pé | Fala | Galinha | Exclamação | Insegurança |
Zôo | Brinco | Zeloso | Exercício | Representação |
Depois | Canguru | Monarquia | Relaxamento | |
Galho | Caracol | Nascimento | Reciprocidade | |
Gente | Decisão | Obstáculo | ||
Letra | Abençoar | Personagem | ||
Barril | Guitarra | Satisfação | ||
Vila | Exato | Criminoso | ||
Feliz | Exceção | Vigilante | ||
Texto | Expresso | Companheiro | ||
Boxe | Orgulho | Cadeado | ||
Peço | Frequência | Abóbora | ||
Guerreiro | ||||
Carteira | ||||
Açúcar | ||||
Salada | ||||
Tóxico | ||||
Xícara |
Appendix B. List of Non-Words
Monosyllables | Disyllables | Trissylables | Polissylables | Polissilables-5+ |
Doi | Neipe | Crânsupo | Purâmipe | Talactorústipa |
Xim | Caufa | Ostolha | Apialolha | Trojubichual |
Lhuz | Fiva | Recole | Onsirrega | Narajulesa |
Nar | Chede | Drintodo | Refutlavom | Escoliônchia |
Té | Felha | Baluna | Ostlanefão | Unfebirancha |
Jôo | Drunco | Jelevo | Ejerfúchie | Retrosompafão |
Dequeis | Tambirá | Nemarpua | Relhassamonque | |
Balhe | Paratel | Maschumompe | Rechuprecibade | |
Genco | Defujão | Obspátulhe | ||
Lopra | Agonfoar | Torfenavem | ||
Garrul | Duparra | Sapuschafão | ||
Vulha | Ovapo | Trunimeso | ||
Cheluz | Ofechão | Visulhampo | ||
Texque | Estrofo | Pentanoiro | ||
Doxo | Erdulo | Tagoabe | ||
Pofo | Fropenchia | Adéguela | ||
Derroilo | ||||
Parcoira | ||||
Afútar | ||||
Chalega | ||||
Póxite | ||||
Fútara |
References
- Pritchard, S.C.; Coltheart, M.; Marinus, E.; Castles, A. A Computational Model of the Self-Teaching Hypothesis Based on the Dual-Route Cascaded Model of Reading. Cogn. Sci. 2018, 42, 722–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iebig, J.; Froehlich, E.; Morawetz, C.; Braun, M.; Jacobs, A.M.; Heekeren, H.R.; Ziegler, J.C. Neurofunctionally dissecting the reading system in children. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2017, 27, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wise Younger, J.; Tucker-Drob, E.; Booth, J.R. Longitudinal changes in reading network connectivity related to skill improvement. Neuroimage 2017, 158, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malins, J.G.; Gumkowski, N.; Buis, B.; Molfese, P.; Rueckl, J.G.; Frost, S.J.; Pugh, K.R.; Morris, R.; Mencl, W.E. Dough, Tough, Cough, Rough: A "Fast" fMRI Localizer of Component Processes in Reading. Physiol. Behav. 2017, 176, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pritchard, S.C.; Coltheart, M.; Marinus, E.; Castles, A. Modelling the implicit learning of phonological decoding from training on whole-word spellings and pronunciations. Sci. Stud. Read. 2016, 20, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grainger, J.; Dufau, S.; Ziegler, J.C. A Vision of Reading. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2016, 20, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glezer, L.S.; Eden, G.; Jiang, X.; Luetje, M.; Napoliello, E.; Kim, J.; Riesenhuber, M. Uncovering phonological and orthographic selectivity across the reading network using fMRI-RA. Neuroimage 2016, 138, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinheiro, A.M.V. Reading and spelling development in Brazilian Portuguese. Read Writ. 1995, 7, 111–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megherbi, H.; Elbro, C.; Oakhill, J.; Segui, J.; New, B. The emergence of automaticity in reading: Effects of orthographic depth and word decoding ability on an adjusted Stroop measure. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2018, 166, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caravolas, M. Growth of Word and Pseudoword Reading Efficiency in Alphabetic Orthographies: Impact of Consistency. J. Learn. Disabil. 2017, 51, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moll, K.; Ramus, F.; Bartling, J.; Bruder, J.; Kunze, S.; Neuhoff, N.; Streiftau, S.; Lyytinen, H.; Leppänen, P.H.; Lohvansuu, K.; et al. Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learn Instr. 2014, 29, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lallier, M.; Valdois, S.; Lassus-Sangosse, D.; Prado, C.; Kandel, S. Impact of orthographic transparency on typical and atypical reading development: Evidence in French-Spanish bilingual children. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2014, 35, 1177–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Katzt, L.; Frost, R. The Reading Process is Different for Different Orthographies: The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis. In Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Defior, S.; Martos, F.; Luz, C. Differences in reading acquisition development in two shallow orthographies: Portuguese and Spanish. Appl. Psycholinguist. 2002, 23, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scliar-Cabral, L. Princípios do Sistema Alfabético do Português do Brasil, 1st ed.; Contexto: São Paulo, Brazil, 2003; 250p. [Google Scholar]
- Seabra, A.G.; Dias, N.M.; Mecca, T.; Macedo, E.C.; Maluf, M.R. Contribution of Word Reading Speed to Reading Comprehension in Brazilian Children: Does Speed Matter to the Comprehension Model? Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aguilar-Mediavilla, E.; Buil-Legaz, L.; Pérez-Castelló, J.A.; Rigo-Carratalà, E.; Adrover-Roig, D. Early preschool processing abilities predict subsequent reading outcomes in bilingual Spanish-Catalan children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). J. Commun. Disord. 2014, 50, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turkyılmaz, M.; Can, R.; Yildirim, K.; Ateş, S. Relations among Oral Reading Fluency, Silent Reading Fluency, Retell Fluency, and Reading Comprehension. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 116, 4030–4034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christ, T.J.; Zopluoglu, C.; Monaghen, B.D.; Van Norman, E.R. Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. J. Sch. Psychol. 2013, 51, 19–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proença, J.; Lopes, C.; Tjalve, M.; Stolcke, A.; Candeias, S.; Perdigão, F. Automatic evaluation of reading aloud performance in children. Interspeech 2017, 94, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, A.J.C.; Cárnio, M.S.; Wertzner, H.F. A relevancia da medida de silabas por minuto na avaliacao da velocidade de leitura. CoDAS 2017, 29, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Carter, M.D.; Walker, M.M.; O’Brien, K. The Effects of Rate on Single-Word Reading Assessment. Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2015, 24, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasil. Resumo Técnico: Resultados do índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica. 2017. Available online: http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/matematica.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2018).
- 24-OCDE (2019a); PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework; PISA, OECD Publishing: Paris, France. [CrossRef]
- AERA (American Educational Research Association); APA (American Psychological Association); NCME (National Council on Measurement in Education). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing; AERA, APA: Washington, DC, USA; NCME: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cunha, V.L.O.; Capellini, S.A. Caracterização do desempenho de escolares do 3° ao 5° ano do ensino fundamental em compreensão de leitura. Rev. CEFAC 2016, 18, 941–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunha, V.L.O.; Capellini, S.A. Construção e validação de instrumento de avaliação da compreensão de leitura para escolares do terceiro ao quinto ano do ensino fundamental. CoDAS 2013, 26, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliveira, A.M.; Capellini, S.A. Compreensão Leitora De Palavras E Frases: Elaboração De Words and Sentences Reading Comprehension: Elaboration of Evaluation Procedure. Psicol. em Estud. 2013, 18, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Germano, G.D.; Capellini, S.A. Performance of students with dyslexia, learning disabilities and learning difficulties in metaphonological abilities tests (PROHFON). J. Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2011, 23, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kawano, C.E.; de Kida, A.S.B.; Carvalho, C.A.F.; de Ávila, C.R.B. Parâmetros de fluência e tipos de erros na leitura de escolares com indicação de dificuldades para ler e escrever. Rev. da Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2011, 16, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- de Oliveira, A.M.; Capellini, S.A. Desempenho de escolares na adaptação brasileira da avaliação dos processos de leitura. Pró-Fono Rev. Atualização Científica 2010, 16, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- de Ávila, C.R.B.; de Kida, A.S.B.; de Carvalho, C.A.F.; Paolucci, J.F. Tipologia de erros de leitura de escolares brasileiros considerados bons leitores. Pró-Fono Rev. Atualização Científica 2009, 21, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunha, V.L.O.; Capellini, S.A. Desempenho de escolares de 1 a a 4 a série do ensino fundamental nas provas de habilidades metafonológicas e de leitura—PROHMELE. Rev. da Soc. Bras. Fonoaudiol. 2009, 14, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viaro, M.E.; Guimarães-Filho, Z.O. Análise quantitativa da freqüência dos fonemas e estruturas silábicas portuguesas. Estud Linguísticos 2007, 36, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- Soares, A.J.C.; Befi-Lopes, D.M. Protocolo de Acompanhamento do Desenvolvimento da Decodificação (PRADE): Análise das propriedades psicométricas. In Proceedings of the XXIX Congresso Brasileiro de Fonoaudiologia, Brazil, 13–16 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Wertzner, H.F. Prova de Fonlogia. 1°; Pró-Fono: Carapicuíba, Brazil, 2004; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
- Stein, L.M.; Giacomoni, C.H.; Fonseca, R.P. TDE II: Livro de Instruções, 1st ed.; Vetor: Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2019; p. 182. [Google Scholar]
- Cárnio, M.S.; Vosgrau, J.S.; Soares, A.J.C. The role of phonological awareness in reading comprehension Endereço para correspondência. Speech Lang Hear. Sci. Educ. J. 2017, 19, 590–600. [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, R.M.; McCardle, P. Models of Reading in Different Orthographies: An Introduction. J. Learn Disabil. 2017, 51, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van den Boer, M.; van Bergen, E.; de Jong, P.F. Underlying skills of oral and silent reading. J. Exp. Child. Psychol. 2014, 128, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deacon, S.H. Sounds, letters and meanings: The independent influences of phonological, morphological and orthographic skills on early word reading accuracy. J. Res. Read. 2012, 35, 456–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bar-Kochva, I.; Breznitz, Z. Does the reading of different orthographies produce distinct brain activity patterns? An ERP study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e36030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bar-Kochva, I.; Breznitz, Z. Reading scripts that differ in orthographic transparency: A within-participant-and-language investigation of underlying skills. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2014, 121, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stern, J.M.B.; Dubeck, M.M.; Dick, A. Using Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) data for targeted instructional support: Learning profiles and instructional needs in Indonesia. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2018, 61, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamata, A.; Joseph, F.T.; Nese, C.; Cheng-Fei, L. Modeling Nonlinear Growth With Three Data Points: Illustration With Benchmarking Data. Assess Eff. Interv. 2013, 38, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaves-Sousa, S.; Santos, S.; Viana, F.L.; Vale, A.P.; Cadime, I.; Prieto, G.; Ribeiro, I. Development of a word reading test: Identifying students at-risk for reading problems. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2017, 56, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasil. Ministério da Educação. Base Nacional Comum. Curricular 2018, 22, 1–458. [Google Scholar]
- Kainz, K. Early academic gaps and Title I programming in high poverty, high minority schools. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 47, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papadopoulos, T.C.; Spanoudis, G.C.; Georgiou, G.K. How is RAN related to reading fluency? A comprehensive examination of the prominent theoretical accounts. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Georgiou, G.K.; Parrila, R.; Cui, Y.; Papadopoulos, T.C. Why is rapid automatized naming related to reading? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2013, 115, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Number of Syllables | Number of Words | Percentage |
---|---|---|
1 | 546 | 0.3 |
2 | 11,712 | 7.7 |
3 | 36,790 | 24.3 |
4 | 48,218 | 31.9 |
5 | 33,125 | 21.9 |
6 | 13,926 | 9.2 |
7 | 4665 | 3.09 |
8 | 1440 | 0.95 |
9 | 362 | 0.23 |
10 | 76 | 0.05 |
>10 | 16 | 0.01 |
Grade | Stimuli Length | Stimuli Type | N | Mean | SD | CI 95% | Median | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UL | LL | |||||||||
1st Grade | Monossyllable | Word | 50 | 48.67 | 42.97 | 38.00 | 59.29 | 33.33 | 0.00 | 100 |
Nonword | 50 | 38.67 | 38.60 | 29.33 | 48.00 | 33.33 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Dissyllable | Word | 50 | 36.38 | 36.89 | 26.75 | 45.80 | 12.50 | 0.00 | 93.75 | |
Nonword | 50 | 34.88 | 38.28 | 25.13 | 44.13 | 12.50 | 0.00 | 93.75 | ||
Trissyllable | Word | 50 | 28.00 | 30.60 | 20.00 | 36.36 | 11.36 | 0.00 | 86.36 | |
Nonword | 50 | 28.27 | 30.79 | 20.50 | 35.41 | 11.36 | 0.00 | 86.36 | ||
Polissyllable (4) | Word | 50 | 27.00 | 33.15 | 18.29 | 35.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 93.75 | |
Nonword | 50 | 21.12 | 27.46 | 13.75 | 28.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 87.50 | ||
Polissyllable (5) | Word | 50 | 29.25 | 35.86 | 20.75 | 37.68 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 19.50 | 28.48 | 12.50 | 27.45 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Total | Word | 50 | 30.77 | 32.63 | 22.17 | 39.15 | 10.00 | 0.00 | 90.00 | |
Nonword | 50 | 27.23 | 30.03 | 19.34 | 34.62 | 8.57 | 0.00 | 81.43 | ||
2nd Grade | Monossyllable | Word | 50 | 84.33 | 25.51 | 76.67 | 91.33 | 100 | 0.00 | 100 |
Nonword | 50 | 69.67 | 26.66 | 62.00 | 76.67 | 75.00 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Dissyllable | Word | 50 | 69.50 | 25.77 | 62.25 | 76.19 | 81.25 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 69.75 | 29.08 | 61.88 | 77.38 | 78.13 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Trissyllable | Word | 50 | 59.73 | 28.26 | 52.35 | 66.28 | 65.91 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 50.64 | 23.61 | 43.82 | 57.36 | 52.27 | 0.00 | 86.36 | ||
Polissyllable (4) | Word | 50 | 59.50 | 28.63 | 51.42 | 67.41 | 62.50 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 39.25 | 22.52 | 33.13 | 45.75 | 37.50 | 0.00 | 87.50 | ||
Polissyllable (5) | Word | 50 | 63.50 | 30.08 | 54.50 | 72.00 | 68.75 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 38.25 | 27.36 | 31.50 | 46.00 | 37.50 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Total | Word | 50 | 62.74 | 25.50 | 55.24 | 69.22 | 72.14 | 0.00 | 92.86 | |
Nonword | 50 | 51.17 | 22.97 | 44.72 | 57.63 | 53.57 | 0.00 | 88.57 | ||
3rd Grade | Monossyllable | Word | 50 | 95.00 | 15.52 | 90.00 | 98.33 | 100 | 0.00 | 100 |
Nonword | 50 | 79.67 | 17.91 | 74.67 | 84.00 | 83.33 | 16.67 | 100 | ||
Dissyllable | Word | 50 | 88.00 | 14.88 | 82.88 | 91.50 | 87.50 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 85.38 | 16.49 | 80.13 | 89.25 | 87.50 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Trissyllable | Word | 50 | 86.82 | 15.81 | 81.73 | 90.55 | 90.91 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 67.55 | 15.99 | 62.73 | 71.81 | 68.18 | 0.00 | 90.91 | ||
Polissyllable (4) | Word | 50 | 85.88 | 16.01 | 80.50 | 89.88 | 87.50 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 58.13 | 17.73 | 52.75 | 63.00 | 62.50 | 0.00 | 87.50 | ||
Polissyllable (5) | Word | 50 | 85.25 | 18.33 | 79.75 | 90.00 | 87.50 | 0.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 57.75 | 26.11 | 50.25 | 65.25 | 62.50 | 0.00 | 100 | ||
Total | Word | 50 | 84.91 | 14.13 | 79.83 | 88.27 | 87.86 | 0.00 | 95.71 | |
Nonword | 50 | 67.43 | 14.89 | 62.75 | 71.51 | 70.00 | 0.00 | 85.71 | ||
4th Grade | Monossyllable | Word | 50 | 95.00 | 8.42 | 93.00 | 97.00 | 100 | 66.67 | 100 |
Nonword | 50 | 79.00 | 16.77 | 74.67 | 83.00 | 83.33 | 33.33 | 100 | ||
Dissyllable | Word | 50 | 90.25 | 8.30 | 87.86 | 92.63 | 93.75 | 62.50 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 81.75 | 17.76 | 76.75 | 86.63 | 87.50 | 31.25 | 100 | ||
Trissyllable | Word | 50 | 92.27 | 9.94 | 89.36 | 95.00 | 95.45 | 59.09 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 67.82 | 14.75 | 63.23 | 71.95 | 68.18 | 27.27 | 100 | ||
Polissyllable (4) | Word | 50 | 89.88 | 13.65 | 86.00 | 93.50 | 93.75 | 37.50 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 60.87 | 15.86 | 56.77 | 65.25 | 62.50 | 12.50 | 100 | ||
Polissyllable (5) | Word | 50 | 93.50 | 10.79 | 90.50 | 96.25 | 100 | 50.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 65.50 | 20.76 | 60.25 | 70.75 | 68.75 | 12.50 | 100 | ||
Total | Word | 50 | 89.00 | 7.96 | 86.54 | 91.19 | 91.43 | 60.00 | 97.14 | |
Nonword | 50 | 68.17 | 13.23 | 64.21 | 71.93 | 71.43 | 22.86 | 91.43 | ||
5th Grade | Monossyllable | Word | 50 | 94.67 | 8.54 | 92.33 | 96.67 | 100 | 66.67 | 100 |
Nonword | 50 | 81.67 | 15.15 | 78.00 | 85.33 | 83.33 | 50.00 | 100 | ||
Dissyllable | Word | 50 | 92.13 | 5.90 | 90.50 | 93.50 | 93.75 | 75.00 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 82.75 | 14.32 | 78.75 | 86.75 | 87.50 | 43.75 | 100 | ||
Trissyllable | Word | 50 | 93.45 | 9.55 | 90.45 | 96.09 | 95.45 | 54.55 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 71.09 | 13.80 | 67.64 | 74.55 | 72.73 | 22.73 | 100 | ||
Polissyllable (4) | Word | 50 | 92.88 | 7.99 | 90.28 | 95.00 | 93.75 | 62.50 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 64.50 | 17.19 | 59.38 | 69.37 | 68.75 | 18.75 | 87.50 | ||
Polissyllable (5) | Word | 50 | 94.00 | 9.19 | 91.50 | 96.25 | 100 | 62.50 | 100 | |
Nonword | 50 | 65.50 | 24.43 | 59.25 | 71.75 | 62.50 | 12.50 | 100 | ||
Total | Word | 50 | 90.51 | 5.73 | 88.77 | 92.14 | 92.86 | 72.86 | 97.14 | |
Nonword | 50 | 70.49 | 11.29 | 67.45 | 73.83 | 72.14 | 45.71 | 92.86 |
Effects | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | Hypothesis A1 Grade (GR) | Hypothesis A2 Stimuli Type (ST) | Hypothesis A3 Stimuli Length (SL) | Hypothesis B1 GR × ST | Hypothesis B2 GR × SL | Hypothesis B3 ST × SL | Hypothesis B4 GR × ST × SL | |
X2 Wald | 2,924,078 | 157,101 | 727,674 | 485,817 | 126,102 | 101,155 | 379,190 | 115,962 |
DF | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 16 | 4 | 16 |
p | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * |
Comparison | b | Standard Error | 95% CI | X2 Wald | p | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LL | UL | ||||||||
Percent accuracy | Intercept | - | 49.67 | 6.02 | 37.88 | 61.46 | 68.168 | <0.001 * | 1.538 |
Grade | 1° vs. 5° | 46.00 | 6.13 | 33.98 | 58.02 | 56.250 | <0.001 * | 1.425 | |
1° vs. 4° | 46.33 | 6.13 | 34.32 | 58.35 | 57.132 | <0.001 * | 1.435 | ||
1° vs. 3° | 46.33 | 6.40 | 33.80 | 58.87 | 52.477 | <0.001 * | 1.435 | ||
1° vs. 2° | 35.67 | 7.00 | 21.95 | 49.38 | 25.991 | <0.001 * | 1.105 | ||
Stimuli type | Word vs. Nonword | −10.00 | 2.49 | −14.89 | −5.11 | 16.071 | <0.001 * | 0.310 | |
Stimuli length | Mono vs. Poli5 | −19.42 | 2.89 | −25.07 | −13.76 | 45.270 | <0.001 * | 0.602 | |
Mono vs. Poli4 | −21.67 | 2.94 | −27.42 | −15.91 | 54.428 | <0.001 * | 0.671 | ||
Mono vs. Tri | −20.67 | 2.63 | −25.82 | −15.51 | 61.675 | <0.001 * | 0.640 | ||
Mono vs. Di | −12.29 | 2.00 | −16.22 | −8.37 | 37.698 | <0.001 * | 0.381 |
Grade | Comparison | Nonword | Word | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean Difference | SE | 95% CI | t | p | Mean Difference | SE | 95% CI | t | p | ||||
LL | UL | LL | UL | ||||||||||
1st Grade | Poli5 vs. Poli4 | −1.62 | 5.54 | −12.48 | 9.23 | 0.293 | >0.999 | 2.25 | 6.84 | −11.15 | 15.65 | 0.329 | >0.999 |
Poli5 vs. Tri | −8.77 | 5.87 | −20.28 | 2.74 | 1.494 | >0.999 | 1.25 | 6.60 | −11.69 | 14.19 | 0.189 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Di | −15.37 | 6.68 | −28.47 | −2.28 | 2.302 | 0.257 | −7.12 | 7.20 | −21.24 | 6.99 | 0.989 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Mono | −19.17 | 6.72 | −32.33 | −6.00 | 2.854 | 0.064 | −19.42 | 7.84 | −34.77 | −4.06 | 2.478 | 0.168 | |
Poli4 vs. Tri | −7.15 | 5.78 | −18.47 | 4.17 | 1.238 | >0.999 | −1.00 | 6.32 | −13.38 | 11.38 | 0.158 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Di | −13.75 | 6.60 | −26.68 | −0.82 | 2.085 | 0.424 | −9.37 | 6.94 | −22.99 | 4.24 | 1.350 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Mono | −17.54 | 6.63 | −30.54 | −4.54 | 2.645 | 0.110 | −21.67 | 7.60 | −36.56 | −6.77 | 2.852 | 0.064 | |
Tri vs. Di | −6.60 | 6.88 | −20.08 | 6.88 | 0.960 | >0.999 | −8.38 | 6.71 | −21.53 | 4.78 | 1.248 | >0.999 | |
Tri vs. Mono | −10.39 | 6.91 | −23.94 | 3.16 | 1.503 | >0.999 | −20.67 | 7.39 | −35.14 | −6.19 | 2.798 | 0.074 | |
Di vs. Mono | −3.79 | 7.61 | −18.71 | 11.13 | 0.498 | >0.999 | −12.29 | 7.93 | −27.83 | 3.25 | 1.550 | >0.999 | |
2nd Grade | Poli5 vs. Poli4 | −1.00 | 4.96 | −10.72 | 8.72 | 0.202 | >0.999 | 4.00 | 5.81 | −7.40 | 15.40 | 0.688 | >0.999 |
Poli5 vs. Tri | −12.39 | 5.06 | −22.30 | −2.47 | 2.448 | 0.181 | 3.77 | 5.78 | −7.55 | 15.10 | 0.653 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Di | −31.50 | 5.59 | −42.46 | −20.54 | 5.635 | <0.001 * | −6.00 | 5.55 | −16.87 | 4.87 | 1.082 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Mono | −31.42 | 5.35 | −41.90 | −20.93 | 5.874 | <0.001 * | −20.83 | 5.52 | −31.66 | −10.01 | 3.773 | 0.004 * | |
Poli4 vs. Tri | −11.39 | 4.57 | −20.34 | −2.43 | 2.493 | 0.162 | −0.23 | 5.63 | −11.27 | 10.81 | 0.040 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Di | −30.50 | 5.15 | −40.59 | −20.41 | 5.923 | <0.001 * | −10.00 | 5.39 | −20.57 | 0.57 | 1.854 | 0.699 | |
Poli4 vs. Mono | −30.42 | 4.89 | −39.99 | −20.84 | 6.226 | <0.001 * | −24.83 | 5.37 | −35.36 | −14.31 | 4.625 | <0.001 * | |
Tri vs. Di | −19.11 | 5.24 | −29.39 | −8.84 | 3.645 | 0.007 * | −9.77 | 5.35 | −20.27 | 0.72 | 1.825 | 0.742 | |
Tri vs. Mono | −19.03 | 4.99 | −28.80 | −9.26 | 3.817 | 0.004 * | −24.61 | 5.33 | −35.05 | −14.16 | 4.616 | <0.001 * | |
Di vs. Mono | 0.08 | 5.52 | −10.74 | 10.91 | 0.015 | >0.999 | −14.83 | 5.08 | −24.78 | −4.88 | 2.922 | 0.053 | |
3rd Grade | Poli5 vs. Poli4 | −0.38 | 4.42 | −9.04 | 8.29 | 0.085 | >0.999 | −0.63 | 3.41 | −7.30 | 6.05 | 0.183 | >0.999 |
Poli5 vs. Tri | −9.80 | 4.29 | −18.20 | −1.39 | 2.285 | 0.267 | −1.57 | 3.39 | −8.21 | 5.07 | 0.463 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Di | −27.63 | 4.32 | −36.10 | −19.15 | 6.389 | <0.001 * | −2.75 | 3.31 | −9.23 | 3.73 | 0.832 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Mono | −21.92 | 4.43 | −30.60 | −13.23 | 4.944 | <0.001 * | −9.75 | 3.36 | −16.34 | −3.16 | 2.899 | 0.056 | |
Poli4 vs. Tri | −9.42 | 3.34 | −15.97 | −2.87 | 2.818 | 0.070 | −0.94 | 3.15 | −7.12 | 5.23 | 0.299 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Di | −27.25 | 3.39 | −33.90 | −20.60 | 8.037 | <0.001 * | −2.13 | 3.06 | −8.12 | 3.87 | 0.694 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Mono | −21.54 | 3.53 | −28.46 | −14.63 | 6.105 | <0.001 * | −9.12 | 3.12 | −15.24 | −3.01 | 2.923 | 0.053 | |
Tri vs. Di | −17.83 | 3.22 | −24.13 | −11.53 | 5.545 | <0.001 * | −1.18 | 3.04 | −7.14 | 4.77 | 0.389 | >0.999 | |
Tri vs. Mono | −12.12 | 3.36 | −18.71 | −5.53 | 3.607 | 0.007 * | −8.18 | 3.10 | −14.26 | −2.10 | 2.638 | 0.112 | |
Di vs. Mono | 5.71 | 3.41 | −0.97 | 12.39 | 1.675 | >0.999 | −7.00 | 3.01 | −12.90 | −1.10 | 2.325 | 0.243 | |
4th Grade | Poli5 vs. Poli4 | 4.62 | 3.66 | −2.54 | 11.79 | 1.265 | >0.999 | 3.63 | 2.44 | −1.15 | 8.40 | 1.488 | >0.999 |
Poli5 vs. Tri | −2.32 | 3.56 | −9.30 | 4.67 | 0.650 | >0.999 | 1.23 | 2.05 | −2.80 | 5.25 | 0.598 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Di | −16.25 | 3.82 | −23.75 | −8.75 | 4.249 | <0.001 * | 3.25 | 1.90 | −0.48 | 6.98 | 1.706 | 0.945 | |
Poli5 vs. Mono | −13.50 | 3.74 | −20.82 | −6.18 | 3.613 | 0.007 * | −1.50 | 1.92 | −5.25 | 2.25 | 0.783 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Tri | −6.94 | 3.03 | −12.89 | −1.00 | 2.290 | 0.265 | −2.40 | 2.36 | −7.03 | 2.24 | 1.014 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Di | −20.88 | 3.33 | −27.41 | −14.34 | 6.262 | <0.001 * | −0.38 | 2.24 | −4.76 | 4.01 | 0.168 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Mono | −18.13 | 3.23 | −24.46 | −11.79 | 5.608 | <0.001 * | −5.12 | 2.25 | −9.53 | −0.72 | 2.282 | 0.269 | |
Tri vs. Di | −13.93 | 3.23 | −20.27 | −7.60 | 4.311 | <0.001 * | 2.02 | 1.81 | −1.53 | 5.58 | 1.116 | >0.999 | |
Tri vs. Mono | −11.18 | 3.13 | −17.31 | −5.05 | 3.576 | 0.008 * | −2.73 | 1.82 | −6.30 | 0.85 | 1.495 | >0.999 | |
Di vs. Mono | 2.75 | 3.42 | −3.95 | 9.45 | 0.804 | >0.999 | −4.75 | 1.65 | −7.99 | −1.51 | 2.871 | 0.061 | |
5th Grade | Poli5 vs. Poli4 | 1.00 | 4.18 | −7.20 | 9.20 | 0.239 | >0.999 | 1.13 | 1.70 | −2.22 | 4.47 | 0.660 | >0.999 |
Poli5 vs. Tri | −5.59 | 3.93 | −13.29 | 2.11 | 1.423 | >0.999 | 0.55 | 1.86 | −3.09 | 4.18 | 0.294 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Di | −17.25 | 3.96 | −25.02 | −9.48 | 4.352 | <0.001 * | 1.88 | 1.53 | −1.12 | 4.87 | 1.227 | >0.999 | |
Poli5 vs. Mono | −16.17 | 4.02 | −24.05 | −8.28 | 4.017 | 0.002 * | −0.67 | 1.76 | −4.11 | 2.78 | 0.379 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Tri | −6.59 | 3.09 | −12.64 | −0.54 | 2.135 | 0.379 | −0.58 | 1.74 | −4.00 | 2.84 | 0.332 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Di | −18.25 | 3.13 | −24.39 | −12.11 | 5.826 | <0.001 * | 0.75 | 1.39 | −1.97 | 3.47 | 0.540 | >0.999 | |
Poli4 vs. Mono | −17.17 | 3.21 | −23.46 | −10.88 | 5.350 | <0.001 * | −1.79 | 1.64 | −5.00 | 1.42 | 1.094 | >0.999 | |
Tri vs. Di | −11.66 | 2.78 | −17.12 | −6.20 | 4.188 | 0.001 * | 1.33 | 1.57 | −1.75 | 4.41 | 0.846 | >0.999 | |
Tri vs. Mono | −10.58 | 2.87 | −16.20 | −4.95 | 3.686 | 0.006 * | −1.21 | 1.79 | −4.73 | 2.30 | 0.676 | >0.999 | |
Di vs. Mono | 1.08 | 2.92 | −4.64 | 6.80 | 0.371 | >0.999 | −2.54 | 1.45 | −5.39 | 0.31 | 1.749 | 0.867 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Soares, A.J.C.; Sassi, F.C.; Fortunato-Tavares, T.; Andrade, C.R.F.; Befi-Lopes, D.M. How Word/Non-Word Length Influence Reading Acquisition in a Transparent Language: Implications for Children’s Literacy and Development. Children 2023, 10, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10010049
Soares AJC, Sassi FC, Fortunato-Tavares T, Andrade CRF, Befi-Lopes DM. How Word/Non-Word Length Influence Reading Acquisition in a Transparent Language: Implications for Children’s Literacy and Development. Children. 2023; 10(1):49. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10010049
Chicago/Turabian StyleSoares, Aparecido J. C., Fernanda C. Sassi, Talita Fortunato-Tavares, Claudia R. F. Andrade, and Débora M. Befi-Lopes. 2023. "How Word/Non-Word Length Influence Reading Acquisition in a Transparent Language: Implications for Children’s Literacy and Development" Children 10, no. 1: 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10010049
APA StyleSoares, A. J. C., Sassi, F. C., Fortunato-Tavares, T., Andrade, C. R. F., & Befi-Lopes, D. M. (2023). How Word/Non-Word Length Influence Reading Acquisition in a Transparent Language: Implications for Children’s Literacy and Development. Children, 10(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10010049