Auditory perception and reading: A closer look∗

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Exceptional ChildPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd19

Auditory perception and reading: A closer lookPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: (1981) Auditory perception and reading: A closer look , The Exceptional Child, 28:2, 98-113, DOI:10.1080/0156655810280204

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0156655810280204

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0156655810280204

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0156655810280204

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Exceptional Child Vol. 28 No. 2, July 1981

Auditory perception and reading: A closer look*

JEAN R. HARBERUniversity of Maryland

© University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Queensland, 1981.ISSN 0156-6555

Abstract

This article presents a review of the literature on the relationship between auditory perception skills(discrimination, memory, closure, and sound blending) and reading performance, with emphasis onsound blending and closure. Difficulties in the interpretation of previous findings are discussed. Twoempirical studies are reported in which the relationship between sound blending and auditory closureand reading performance (word analysis skills, oral reading, and silent reading) was explored inlearning disabled youngsters. Results of the first study indicated that, with the effects ofchronological age and intelligence test score partialled out, most of the correlation coefficients werestatistically significant, but only one, the relationship between auditory closure and word analysisskills, was educationally relevant. This relationship was explored further in the second study. Usinglearning disabled youngsters who were somewhat more advanced in reading, the relationship betweenauditory closure and reading was again found to be educationally significant with the effects ofchronological age and intelligence test score controlled. Educational implications are discussed.

In contrast with visual perception and its relationship to reading, about whichthere is a large body of literature, relatively little empirical information existsconcerning auditory perception and its relationship to reading. This finding isboth surprising and troublesome as several researchers have found that auditoryperceptual measures are better predictors of reading achievement than are visualperceptual measures (Blank, 1968; Linder & Fillmer, 1970; Muehl & Kremenak,1966). It has been widely assumed that some basal level of auditory skill is relatedto normal language acquisition, school readiness, and academic achievement,particularly reading. Various auditory perceptual processes have been described,including the processes of discrimination, memory, analysis (closure), andsynthesis (sound blending). A review of the literature indicates that much of theresearch in auditory perception has focused on auditory discrimination andmemory, while little attention has been paid to blending and closure. The mostthoroughly investigated area of auditory perception is auditory discrimination(Witkin, 1969). Numerous researchers have found that skill in auditorydiscrimination correlates moderately with reading achievement (e.g., Benger,1968; Morency, 1968; Oakland, 1969; Peck, 1977; Wepman, 1960) and it isgenerally assumed that a minimal level of auditory discrimination is necessaryfor the normal acquisition of reading and general verbal skills (e.g., Deutsch,1964; Zigmond, 1969). Auditory memory and auditory sequential memory havealso been investigated by many researchers. Although the research is notconclusive, it appears that impairments in memory and sequential memory arerelated to reading disabilities (Hirshoren, 1969; Kirk, 1968; Rugel, 1974; Witkin,1969). Numerous researchers have reported significant correlations betweenreading achievement and memory (e.g., Badian, 1977; Boyd & Butler, 1971:Morency, 1968; Peck, 1977; Poling, 1953).

* Based on a presentation at the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Milwaukee,Wisconsin, February, 1980.

V8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Auditory perception and reading 99

Two auditory perceptual skills which have received relatively little researchattention are auditory closure (analysis) and sound blending (synthesis). It hasbeen suggested that these skills provide possible clues to reading performance(Finkenbinder, 1972) with sound blending being identified as a possiblecomponent of the decoding process (Richardson & Bradley, 1974). Soundblending has been studied more extensively than auditory closure. Mostresearchers who have studied the relationship between sound blending andreading in primary grade children have reported statistically significantcorrelations between the two skills. Recent reviews (e.g. Richardson,DiBenedetto & Bradley, 1977) indicate that three types of studies have beenconducted: studies which compared good and poor readers, studies whichdetermined concurrent relationships, and those which established predictiverelationships. Of those which compared the performance of good and poorreaders on sound blending tasks, most reported that the two groups performedsignificantly differently (Table 1.). However, a word of caution is in order. AsHammill and Larsen (1974) have noted, when youngsters are assigned to groupson the basis of reading ability, the groups may also differ in intellectual ability.The influence of mental ability in studies of good and poor readers which do notcontrol for intelligence, therefore, cannot be determined. Studies which soughtconcurrent relationships between sound blending and reading achievementreported low to moderate correlation coefficients (Table 1). Again, only some ofthese studies controlled for the effects of intelligence. Investigations of predictiverelationships between sound blending and reading achievement also yielded lowto moderate correlation coefficients, with no studies controlling for intelligence(Table 1). When uncontrolled, intelligence tends to inflate the resultingcoefficients, suggesting that the true predictive relationship between soundblending and reading achievement may be somewhat lower than the coefficientssuggest.

Researchers and educators who have reviewed the literature have reacheddifferent conclusions regarding the significance of the relationship betweensound blending and reading achievement. Hammill and Larsen (1974), in areview of thirty-three studies which used correlational procedures to examine therelationship of" reading to various auditory perceptual measures concluded thatcoefficients associated with sound blending, while significant, were too low foruseful prediction. They stressed the need for additional research in this area.Richardson et al. (1977) reviewed thirteen studies, including six of those reviewedby Hammill and Larsen, which focused on the relationship between soundblending and reading achievement. These researchers concluded that there wasan educationally meaningful relationship between these skills. Concerningauditory perception in general, Sabatino (1973) acknowledged that the re-lationship between reading failure and auditory functioning was well established.In contrast, Lyon (1977), concluded that research findings did not support theview that intact auditory-perceptual skills were necessary for the adequatedevelopment of reading ability. Correlational studies must be interpretedcautiously: causation cannot be inferred. What is clear, however, is thatresearchers have drawn very different conclusions from the available literatureconcerning the relationship between sound blending and reading.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Summary of Sound Blending Studies.

Study Characteristicsof subjects

N Test Instruments Findings

Reading achievement Sound Blending

Comparison of good and poor readers

Bond (1935) 2nd & 3rd graders, matched 128 Gates Primary Readingfor sex and IQ Test

Author's test Good readers obtained ahigher mean score (x = 15.2)on blending task than poorreaders (x = 9.5).

Kass(1966) 2nd-4th graders, IQ>85, 21 Monroe Diagnosticreading problems compared Reading Testwith ITPA (1961)standardization sample

ITPA, sound blendingsubtest

Standardization sampleobtained significantly higherscores on sound blendingthan children with readingproblems (p<.001).

Connors, Kramer, & lst-6th graders, normal IQ 148 Teachers'ratingsGuerra(1969)

Author's test Achieving group scoredsignificantly higher onblending task than non-achieving group (p<.001).

Golden & Steiner 2nd graders, matched for(1969) IQ and age

20 Gates Advanced PrimaryParagraph Reading TestGates-McKillop ReadingDiagnostic Tests, Oralsection


Good readers scoredsignificantly higher on soundblending than poor readers

Flynn & Byrne(1970)

3rd graders 39 Iowa Test of Basic Skills,Reading subtest

Monroe DiagnosticReading Aptitude Test,sound blending subtestAuthor's test

Advanced readers obtainedsignificantly higher scores onthe Monroe (p<.05) and onthe author's test (p<.001)than retarded readers.

Macione(1970) 2nd & 3rd grade males,matched for IQ and age

56 American SchoolAchievement Tests


Disabled readers scoredsignificantly higher on soundblending than nondisabledreaders (p<.05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Summary of Sound Blending Studies—continued.


N Test Instruments


Findings

Sears (1970) 2nd grade males normal 1Q 30 Engelmann Basic Concept ITPA, sound blendingInventory subtest

No significant differences onsound blending performancebetween group reading atgrade level and group readingbelow grade level.

Larsen, Rogers, &Sowell (1976)

Gates, Bond &Russell (1939)

Ewers (1950)

Mulder & Curtin(1955)

Learning disabled and 4thgraders, average IQ,matched for age and sex

1st graders

9-12th graders

4th graders

89

97

40

63

Stanford ReadingAchievement Test

Concurrent correlations

Gates Primary ReadingTestCriterion-referenced tests

Gray Standardized OralReading Paragraphs TestIowa Silent Reading Test

Iowa Test of Basic Skills

ITPA sound blendingsubtest

Bond's (1935) test

Author's test

Author's test

No significant differences onsound blending performancebetween groups.

.52

.46-.60 (two-syllable blendingand reading).19-.23 (letter blending andreading)

.44

Chall, Roswell, &Blumenthal(1963)

lst-4th graders 40 Metropolitan Achievement Roswell-Chall AuditoryTest Blending TestGray Standardized OralReading Paragraph TestRoswell-Chall DiagnosticTest of Word AnalysisSkills

.26-.66

Bruininks (1969) 3rd graders 105 Metropolitan Achievement Roswell-Chall AuditoryTest Blending Test

.30 with IQ Controlled

.47 without controlling forIQ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1. Summary of Sound Blending Studies-

Study

Balmuth (1971)'

Rosner & Simon(1971)

Characteristicsof subjects

lst-6th graders

K-6th graders

-continued.

N

252

284

Test Instruments


Silent Reading Author's Test

Stanford Achievement Test, Author's TestLanguage Arts subtests

Findings

.56, .66

.10-.69 with IQ Controlled

.53-.84 without controllingforlQ

Elkins(1972) 3rd graders 144 St. Lucia (Cloze) ReadingComprehension TestSt. Lucia Graded WordRecognition TestNeale Oral Reading TestSchonell ReadingComprehension Test


.33

Gallistel, Boyle,Curran &Hawthorne (1972)

1st gradelow achieving readers

58 Wide Range AchievementTest, Reading RecognitionGallistel-Ellis LinguisticReading and Spelling Test

ITPA sound blendingsubtest

.14-.35

Hare (1977) 2nd graders, normal IQ,normal achieverslow Frostig DTVP scores

81 Stanford Achievement Test,Paragraph Meaning subtestWide Range AchievementTest, Reading Recognitionsubtest


.32 (paragraph reading andblending).17 (Reading Recognitionand blending)

Harber(1979) Learning disabled & 2ndgraders, matched for age

109 Peabody IndividualAchievement Test, ReadingRecognition and ReadingComprehension subtests


.31 (LD-ReadingRecognition and blending).38 (Normal-ReadingRecognition and blending)-.04 (LD-ReadingComprehension andBlending).34 (N-ReadingComprehension andblending)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Chall, Roswell, & lst-4th gradersBlumenthai (1963)

Study

Gates (1939)

Gates, Bond, &Russell (1939)

Characteristicsof subjects

1st graders

1st graders

N Test Instruments

Reading achievement

Predictive Correlations

154 Gates Primary ReadingTestCriterion-referenced test

97 Gates Primary ReadingTestCriterion-referenced tests

Sound Blending

Author's Test

Bond's (1935) test

Findings

.10-.54

.29-.42

40 Metropolitan Achievement Roswell-Chall AuditoryTest Blending TestGray Standardized OralReading Paragraphs TestRoswell-Chall DiagnosticTest of Word AnalysisSkills

.30-.57

Dykstra (1966) 1st graders

632 Gates Primary ReadingTest

Monroe ReadingDiagnostic ReadingAptitude TestSound blending subtest

.24

McNinch (1971) 1 st graders 117 SRA Achievement Series Roswell-Chall AuditoryBlending Test

.33

Finkenbinder(1972) K-3rd graders 242 Wide Range Achievement ITPA, sound blendingTest, Reading Recognition subtestsubtest

Sound blending providedimportant clues to wordattack skills. Sound blending,in combination with 1Q andCA, consistently predictsreading performance ingrades 1-3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4





Gallistel, Boyle,Curran, &Hawthorne (1972)

1st grade, low achievingreaders

58 Wide Range Achievement ITPA, Sound blendingTest, Reading Recognition subtestsubtestGallistel-Ellis LinguisticReading and Spelling tests

-33-.3S

Mcl^inch &Richmond (1972)

1st graders 55 Stanford Achievement test Author's test .44 (word recognition andblending).32 (paragraph reading andblending).29 (vocabulary andblending)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4


Research on auditory closure is far less extensive than that on sound blending.Several researchers have suggested that auditory closure is a necessary or at leasta helpful skill in the acquisition of reading (Findenbinder, 1972; Fox & Routh,1976; Kass, 1966; Kroth, 1971; Oakland & Williams, 1971). Of six studies whichhave investigated the relationship between auditory closure and readingachievement, three compared good and poor readers on auditory closure tasks;two found no significant differences while the other found differences whichapproached, but did not reach statistical significance (Table 2). Studies whichdetermined concurrent and/or predictive relationships between auditory closureand reading achievement reported low to moderate coefficients (Table 2).Intelligence was controlled in only two of the six studies. The true magnitude ofthe relationship, therefore, may be somewhat lower than reported. In sum,review of the literature indicates that research findings concerning therelationship between auditory closure and reading achievement are inconclusive.

While several practitioners have noted that learning disabled children oftenhave difficulties with sound blending and/or auditory closure (Conners, Kramer&Guerra, 1969;Katz&Illmer, 1972; Kroth, 1971), there is a dearth of empiricaldata to support or refute this assumption. Only two of the sound blending studiesused learning disabled subjects. Larsen, Rogers and Sowell (1976) compared theperformance of learning disabled and normal fourth graders on a sound blendingtask and reported that the two groups scored similarly. Harber (1979) reported astatistically significant, albeit low, correlation between reading recognition andblending with intelligence and chronological age controlled in learning disabledsubjects, but a nonsignificant relationship between reading comprehension andblending. No studies which examined the relationship between auditory closureand reading performance in learning disabled youngsters were located.McGovern (1976) compared the performance of learning disabled/culturallydifferent and non-learning disabled/culturally different children, matched for IQ,on four auditory perceptual tasks (discrimination, sequential memory, closure,and sound blending). She found that the two groups performed significantlydifferently on all four tasks. She was not able to determine, however, whether herfindings were due to learning disabilities or to factors such as dialect.

Study 1

This first study examined the extent of the relationship between sound blendingand auditory closure and reading performance in learning disabled subjects.Three measures of reading were used to determine if the magnitude of therelationships differed when comparing sound blending and auditory closure withword analysis skills, oral reading, and silent reading performance. Intelligenceand chronological age were partialled out to control for the effects of thesevariables.

Method

Subjects

The experimental subjects were seventy-six children who had been identified as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 2. Summary of Auditory Closure Studies.



Reading achievement Auditory Closure

Comparison of good and poor readers

Golden & Stciner(1969)

2nd graders, matched forIQ and age

20 Gates Advanced PrimaryParagraph TestGates-McKillop ReadingDiagnostic Tests, Oralsection

1TPA, auditory closuresubtest

Good readers scored higheron auditory closure thanpoor readers, differenceapproached but did not reachsignificance (p<.10).

Macione(1970) 2nd & 3rd grade males,matched for IQ and age

56 American SchoolAchievement Tests

ITPA, auditory closuresubtest

No significant difference onauditory closure performancebetween disabled andnondisabled readers.

Sears (1970) 2nd grade males, normal IQ 30 Englemann Basic Concept ITPA, auditory closureInventory subtest

No significant difference onauditory closure performancebetween group reading atgrade level and group readingbelow grade level.

Concurrent Correlations

Elkins(1972) 3rd graders 144 St. Lucia (Cloze) ReadingComprehension TestSt. Lucia Graded WordRecognition TestNeale Oral Reading TestSchonell ReadingComprehension Test

ITPA, Auditory closuresubtest

.40


1st grade,low achieving readers

58 Wide Range AchievementTest, Reading RecognitionsubtestGallistel-Ellis LinguisticReading and Spelling Test

ITPA, Auditory closuresubtest

.13-.31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 2. Summary of Auditory Closure Studies—continued.


N Test Instruments

Reading achievement Auditory Closure

Findings

Predictive Correlations

Finkenbinder (1972) K-3rd grade 242 Wide Range AchievementTestReading RecognitionSubtest

1TPA, Auditory closuresubtest

Auditory closure couldprovide essential clues toword attack skills thephonetic approach reading.


1st grade,low achieving readers

58 Wide Range Achievement ITPA, auditory closureTest, Reading Recognition subtestSubtestGallistel-Ellis LinguisticReading and Spelling Test

.20-.30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

108 Jean R. Harher

learning disabled on the basis of the following criteria: (1) Evidence of academicdeficit sufficient to warrant special education services, (2) Intelligence quotientsin the average or above average range, (3) No evidence of physical, sensory, orprimary emotional problems, and (4) Chronological ages between 6-0 and 10-0years. Mean chronological age was 8-5 and mean IQ was 93.59.

Procedures

The following test instruments were used. Sound blending ability was measuredby the Sound Blending subtest and auditory closure by the Auditory Closuresubtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) (Kirk, McCarthy& Kirk, 1968). The Word Recognition and Word Analysis subtest of the DurrellAnalysis of Reading Difficulty (Durrell, 1955) was used to measure word analysisskills. Subjects who were unable to read at least ten words on this subtest werealso administered the Hearing Sounds in Words subtest of the Durrell. TheDurrell Oral Reading subtest was used to measure oral reading and the SilentReading subtest to measure silent reading. Subjects were tested individually andthe order of the tasks remained constant for all subjects.

Data Analysis

Second-order partial correlational procedures were used to determine therelationship between auditory-perceptual and reading skills, without theconfounding influence of intelligence and chronological age. To determinewhether the relationships were substantial enough to be of educational value, itwas necessary to establish a minimum level at which the correlation coefficientsattained practical significance. Guilford (1956) has suggested that educationallysignificant coefficients must reach .3, while Garrett (1954) maintains that onlycoefficients of .4 or above are useful. In this study, .35 was used as the cutoffpoint. Differences were tested for significance using the Z statistic.

Results and Discussion

Zero- and second-order partial correlations are presented in Table 3. Only onecoefficient, that between auditory closure and word analysis skills, reached theestablished level of significance. The magnitude of the correlations was greaterfor word attack skills than for oral reading and greater for oral reading than forsilent reading. However, differences were not statistically significant (Z = .23 to1.76). The coefficients were greater for auditory closure and each reading skillthan for sound blending; however, the differences did not reach statisticalsignificance (Z = .69 to 1.85).

The results are consistent with previous research which has addressed therelationship between auditory perceptual and reading skills. The correlationcoefficients substantially increase in magnitude when the effects of intelligenceand chronological age are partialled out. This finding lends support to thesuggestion that correlation coefficients reported in studies which have notcontrolled for intelligence may be inflated. With the effects of intelligence and agecontrolled, the obtained coefficients remain statistically significant in five of thesix cases, but are too small to be of educational value in all but one instance. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

.40

.32

.20

.44

.42

.38

<.001<.005<.05<.001<.001<.001

.28

.19

.09

.35

.32

.29

<.01<.05

NS< .001<.001<.01


one relationship, between auditory closure and word analysis skills, meritsfurther investigation. It has been suggested (Elkins, 1972) that auditory closureskill becomes more critical to reading success at the third grade level. As subjectsin this study had not reached that level, it is possible that the relationship betweenauditory closure and reading may be more significant among more advancedreaders. Supporting this hypothesis, Kaluger and Kolson (1978) maintain thatability in phonetic analysis (closure) skills is essential by the middle of secondgrade because at this stage too many words look alike for children to successfullydiscriminate among them using visual clues alone. Kaluger and Kolson suggestthat it is at this level that children with auditory perceptual problems begin toexperience difficulty with reading.

Table 3. Correlation Coefficients Between Auditory Perceptual and Reading Skills.

Variables Correlated Zero-order p Second-order pcorrelation correlationcoefficient coefficient

Sound Blending with Word Analysis SkillsSound Blending with Oral ReadingSound Blending with Silent ReadingAuditory Closure with Word Analysis SkillsAuditory Closure with Oral ReadingAuditory Closure with Silent Reading

NS = Not Significant.

The findings of this study are consistent with those of Chall, Roswell andBlumenthal (1963), Harber (1979), and McNinch and Richmond (1972), whoreported that sound blending ability was more related to word analysis skills thanto oral reading and more related to oral reading than to silent reading. Thedifference in magnitude of the correlations, however, did not reach statisticalsignificance.

The data confirm that the relationships between two auditory perceptual skills,closure and sound blending, and reading skills (word analysis skills, oral reading,and silent reading) are relatively small in the sample of learning disabled childrenstudied. However, these relationships, in particular the relationship betweenauditory closure and reading performance, merit further investigation inchildren who are more advanced in reading than the sample studied in this firstinvestigation.

Study 2

The second study, therefore, explored these relationships in children with moreadvanced reading skills.

Method

Subjects

The subjects were seventy-five children who had been identified as learningdisabled according to the same criteria used in the previous study, except that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

110 JeanR. Harber

age range was expanded to eleven years in order to include children who wereperforming at a variety of reading levels. Mean IQ was 94.

Procedures

For purposes of comparison, procedures were similar to those used in the earlierstudy. The same tests were employed, under the same conditions, and dataanalysis was undertaken using the same statistical technique. In addition, threegroups (low, middle, and high) were differentiated according to performance onthe Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. Mean composite reading scores were:low group, X = 126.12; middle group, X = 134.36; high group, X = 188.64.

Results and Discussion

The results are presented in Table 4. Correlation coefficients for each groupexceeded the established cutoff point for practical significance. The correlationbetween auditory closure and reading performance was highest for the lowreading performance group and lowest for the high reading performance group.However, differences in the magnitude of correlations between groups were notstatistically significant (Z = .17 to 1.86). These findings are somewhat surprisingin the light of suggestions found in the literature that auditory closure skillbecomes more critical to reading success after initial reading skills have beenacquired (Elkins, 1972, Kaluger and Kolson, 1978). The findings of this study,however, do support a relationship between auditory closure and reading whichis educationally significant, endorsing the conclusion by Finkenbinder (1972),Fox and Routh (1976), Kass (1966), Kroth (1971), and Oakland and Williams(1972) that auditory closure is either a necessary or at least a helpful skill in theacquisition of reading.

Table 4. Correlation Coefficients Between Auditory Closure andReading Skills.

Group r p

Low readersMiddle readersHigh readers

Summary

The results of these two studies confirm that intelligence and chronological agetend to inflate correlation coefficients between auditory perceptual and readingskills and that the effects of these variables should be controlled for in the study ofthe relationship between auditory perceptual skills and reading. With the effectsof intelligence and age controlled, most coefficients in the first study reachedstatistical significance but were too small to be educationally relevant. Furtherexploration of the relationship between one auditory perceptual skill, closure,and reading in more advanced readers indicated that the relationship betweenauditory closure and reading has practical relevance.

.92

.87

.47

p<001p<.001p<.025

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4


References

Badian, N.A. Auditory-visual integration, auditory memory, and reading in retarded and adequatereaders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 108-114.

Balmuth, M. Phoneme blending and silent reading achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of"the International Reading Association. Atlantic City. New Jersey. 1971. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 052 912).

Benger, K. The relationships of perception, personality, intelligence and grade one readingachievement. In H. K. Smith (Ed.). Perception and Reading. Proceedings of the TwelfthAnnual Convention, Vol. 12, Pt. 4. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association,1968.

Blank, M. Cognitive processes in auditory discrimination in normal and retarded readers. ChildDevelopment, 1968, 39, 1091-1101.

Bond, G.L. The auditory and speech characteristics of good and poor readers. Teachers CollegeContributions to Education, No. 657, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University,1935.

Boyd, E., & Butler, K.G. The relationship of auditory association, reception, and sequencing skillsand academic achievement among first-grade minority students. Paper presented at theAnnual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Chicago, 1971.

Bruininks, R.H. Auditory and visual perceptual skills related to the reading performance ofdisadvantaged boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 179-186.

Chall, J., Roswell, F.G., & Blumenthal, S.H. Auditory blending ability: A factor in success inbeginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 1963, 17, 113-118.

Conners, C.K., Kramer, K., & Guerra, F. Auditory synthesis and dichotic listening in children withlearning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1969, 3, 163-170.

Deutsch, C. Auditory discrimination and learning: Social factors. The Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,1964, 10, 277-296.

Durrell, D.D. Durrell Analysis oj Reading Difficulty. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955.Dykstra, R. Auditory discrimination abilities and beginning reading achievement. Reading Research

Quarterly, 1966, 1, 5-33.Elkins, J. Some psycholinguistic aspects of the differential diagnosis of reading disability in grades I

and II. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia, 1972.Ewers, D.W.F. Relations between auditory abilities and reading abilities: A problem in

psychometrics. Journal of Experimental Education, 1950, 18, 239-262.Finkenbinder, R.L. The concurrent and predictive validity of selected auditory perceptual tests with

children (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1971). Dissertation AbstractInternational, 1972, 32, 619A (University Microfilm No. 72-13, 849).

Flynn, P.T., & Byrne, M.C. Relationships between reading and selected auditory abilities of third-grade children. Journal oj Speech and Hearing Research, 1970, 13, 731-740.

Fox, B., & Routh, D.K. Phonetic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills. Journal oj EducationalPsychology, 1976, 68, 70-74.

Garrett, H.E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: Longmans Green, 1954.Gallistel, E., Boyle, M., Curran, L., & Hawthorne, M. The relation of visual and auditory aptitudes

to first grade low readers' achievement under sight-word and systematic phonic instruction(Research Report No. 36), Minneapolis, Minnesota: Minneapolis Research Developmentand Demonstration Center in Education of the Handicapped Children, University ofMinnesota, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED 079 714).

Gates, A.I. An experimental evaluation of reading readiness tests. Elementary School Journal, 1939,39, 497-508.

Golden, N.E., & Steiner, S.R. Auditory and visual functions in good and poor readers. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 476-481.

Guilford, J.P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S. Relationship of selected auditory perceptual skills and reading ability.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 429-436.Harber, J.R. Are perceptual skills necessary for success in reading? Which ones? Reading Horizons,

1979, 20, 7-15.Hare, B.A. Perceptual deficits are not a cue to reading problems in second grade. The Reading

Teacher, 1977, 30, 624-628.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

112 JeanR.Harber

Hirshoren, A. A comparison of the predictive validity of the revised Stanford Binet Intelligence Scaleand Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Exceptional Children, 1969, 35, 517-521.

Kaluger, G., & Kolson, C.L. Reading and learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Columbus, Merrill, 1978.Kass, C.E. Psycholinguistic disabilities of children with reading problems. Exceptional Children,

1966, 32, 533-539.Katz, J., & Illmer, R. Auditory perception in children with learning disabilities. In J. Katz (Ed.),

Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore: Williams & Williams, 1972.Kirk, S.A. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities: Its origin and implications. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.)

Learning disorders (Vol. III). Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1968.Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, Illinois:

University of Chicago Press, 1968.Kroth, J.A. A programmed primer in learning disabilities. Springfield, Illinois. Charles C. Thomas,

1971.Larsen, S., Rogers, D., & Sowell, V. The use of selected perceptual tests in differentiating between

normal and learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 85-90.Linder, R., & Fillmer, H.T. Auditory and Visual performance of slow readers. The Reading Teacher,

1970, 24, 17-22.Lyon, R. Auditory-perceptual training: The state of the art. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10,

564-572.Macione, J.R. Psychological correlates of reading disability as defined by the Illinois Test of

Psycholinguistic Abilities (Doctoral dissertation. University of South Dakota, 1969).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, 3817A-3818A (University Microfilms No. 70-5308).

McGovern, M.E. A comparison of auditory perception between learning disabled and nonlearningdisabled culturally different pupils (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans, 1975).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37, 232A. (University Microfilms No. 746-14, 379).

McNinch, G., & Richmond, M. Auditory perceptual tasks as predictors of first-grade readingsuccess. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 7-13.

Morency, A. Auditory modality research and practice. In H.K. Smith (Ed.). Perception and Reading.Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Convention. International Reading Association, Vol. 12,Pt. 4, Newark, Delaware: IRA, 1968.

Muehl, S., & Kremenak, S. Ability to match information within and between auditory and visualsense modalities and subsequent reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology.1966, 57, 230-239.

Mulder, R.L., & Curtin, J. Vocal phonic ability and silent-reading achievement. A first report. TheElementary School Journal, 1955, 56, 121-123.

Oakland, T.D. Auditory discrimination and socioeconomic status as correlates of reading ability.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 324-329.

Oakland, T., & Williams, F. Auditory perception. Seattle, Washington: Special Child Publications,1971.

Peck, N.L. The relationship of visual and auditory perception and modality patterns to readingachievement and intelligence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1977). DissertationAbstracts International, 1977, 38, 20409A-2050A. (University Microfilm No. 77-21, 918).

Poling, D. Auditory deficiencies of poor readers. Clinical Studies in Reading II, SupplementaryEducational Monographs, 1953, 77, 107-111.

Richardson, E., & Bradley, C.M. ISM: A teacher-oriented method of reading instruction for thechild-oriented teacher. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 344-352.

Richardson, E., DiBenedetto, B., & Bradley, C.M. The relationship of sound blending to readingachievement. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 319-334.

Rosner, J., & Simon, D. The auditory analysis test: An initial report. Journal of Learning Disabilities,1971, 4, 384-392.

Rugel, R.P. WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: A review with respect to Bannatyne'srecategorization. Journal oj Learning Disabilities. 1974, 7, 48-55.

Sabatino, D.A. Auditory perception: Development, assessment, and intervention. In L. Mann &D.A. Sabatino (Eds.). The first review of Special Education. Philadelphia: Buttonwood Farms,1973.

Sears, C.R. A comparison of the basic language concepts and psycholinguistic abilities of secondgrade boys who demonstrate average and below average levels of reading achievement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

A uditory perception and reading 113

(Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International,1970, 30, 1758A (University Microfilm No. 69-19. 233).

Wepman. J.M. Auditory discrimination, speech and reading. Elementary School Journal. 1960, 60,325-333.

Witkin, B.R. Auditory perception-implications for language development. Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 1969, 3, 53-71.

Zigmond, N.K. Development of auditory processes. In L. Tarnopol (Ed.), Learning disabilities:introduction to education and medical management. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,1969.

Dr. J.R. Harber is Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, School Psychology andCommunication Disorders, Indiana State University, Terre Haute. Indiana, 47809, U.S.A.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:08

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Auditory perception and reading: A closer look∗