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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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