In-scanner sentence judgment accuracy correlates significantly with standardized reading fluency and phonological awareness scores across both groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 1 causal r1, 1 associational r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2017: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Reading Fluency standard scores correlated negatively with in-scanner reaction time at all three rates and positively with accuracy at Medium and Fast rates. → Christodoulou JA 2014 q3 i? CTOPP Elision scores correlated with in-scanner reaction time and accuracy at several rates. → Christodoulou JA 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Christodoulou JA 2014¶

Christodoulou JA, Del Tufo SN, Lymberis J, Saxler PK, Ghosh SS, et al. (2014) Brain Bases of Reading Fluency in Typical Reading and Impaired Fluency in Dyslexia. PLoS ONE 9(7): e100552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100552

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Correlation analysis across participants in both groups related in-scanner performance to the WJ Reading Fluency test. The article reports "significant positive correlations between Reading Fluency scores and accuracy" at Medium (r = .47) and Fast (r = .63) rates, plus negative RT correlations.

"There were significant positive correlations between Reading Fluency scores and accuracy at the Medium and Fast rates, which did not show ceiling effects for accuracy: Medium (standard scores: r = .47, p, .05); Fast (standard scores: r = .63, p,.01)"

Christodoulou JA 2014 (2)¶

Christodoulou JA, Del Tufo SN, Lymberis J, Saxler PK, Ghosh SS, et al. (2014) Brain Bases of Reading Fluency in Typical Reading and Impaired Fluency in Dyslexia. PLoS ONE 9(7): e100552. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100552

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Correlation analysis across both groups related CTOPP Elision standard scores to in-scanner performance. The article reports significant correlations with reaction time at Medium and Slow rates and accuracy at Fast and Medium rates, with printed r values between .43 and .49.

"Standard scores from a measure of phonological awareness (''Elision,'' CTOPP) showed significant correlations with in-scanner reaction time for Medium (r = 2.49, p,.05) and Slow ( r = 2.43, p,.05) rates, and accuracy for Fast ( r = .44, p,.05) and Medium ( r = .47, p,.05) rates"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In-scanner sentence judgment accuracy declines with faster word presentation rates, and dyslexic readers' accuracy declines disproportionately across rates — related
• Pseudoword decoding, orthographic knowledge, and phonological awareness show moderate relationships with adult reading comprehension (rs .34–.42) — related
• Group differences in activation are more extensive when behavioral performance is equated across groups, indicating they are not a consequence of worse performance — related
• Type-1 performance in reading-related experimental tasks correlates with standardized reading test performance, validating the task battery — related
• Typical readers respond faster than dyslexic readers overall, and responses slow as presentation rates increase, without a group-by-rate interaction for reaction time — related