↓ Skip to main content

Grapheme-Phoneme Learning in an Unknown Orthography: A Study in Typical Reading and Dyslexic Children

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Grapheme-Phoneme Learning in an Unknown Orthography: A Study in Typical Reading and Dyslexic Children
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy M. Law, Astrid De Vos, Jolijn Vanderauwera, Jan Wouters, Pol Ghesquière, Maaike Vandermosten

Abstract

In this study, we examined the learning of new grapheme-phoneme correspondences in individuals with and without dyslexia. Additionally, we investigated the relation between grapheme-phoneme learning and measures of phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge and rapid automatized naming, with a focus on the unique joint variance of grapheme-phoneme learning to word and non-word reading achievement. Training of grapheme-phoneme associations consisted of a 20-min training program in which eight novel letters (Hebrew) needed to be paired with speech sounds taken from the participant's native language (Dutch). Eighty-four third grade students, of whom 20 were diagnosed with dyslexia, participated in the training and testing. Our results indicate a reduced ability of dyslexic readers in applying newly learned grapheme-phoneme correspondences while reading words which consist of these novel letters. However, we did not observe a significant independent contribution of grapheme-phoneme learning to reading outcomes. Alternatively, results from the regression analysis indicate that failure to read may be due to differences in phonological and/or orthographic knowledge but not to differences in the grapheme-phoneme-conversion process itself.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 23 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 24%
Linguistics 7 9%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#7,060,251
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,241
of 30,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,278
of 330,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#344
of 725 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 725 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.