Auditory Perception and Reading: Another Look

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Auditory Perception and Reading: Another LookAuthor(s): Jean R. HarberSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Summer, 1980), pp. 19-29Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510627 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 16:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.184 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:08:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510627?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


AUDITORY PERCEPTION AND READING: ANOTHER LOOK

Jean R. Harber

Abstract. While several practitioners have noted that learning disabled children often experience difficulties with certain auditory perceptual skills, only limited empirical data can be found to support or refute such an assumption. This study examined the relationship between two auditory perceptual skills - sound blending and auditory closure - and reading performance in learning disabled children. Three measures of reading performance were used: word analysis skills, oral reading, and silent reading performance. With the effects of Intelligence and age controlled for, only the relationship between auditory closure and word analysis skills reached educational significance.

The relatively limited information; available concerning auditory perception and its relationship to reading is both surprising and troublesome as several researchers have found that auditory perceptual measures are better predictors of reading achievement than are visual perceptual measures (e.g., Linder & Fillmer, 1970; Muehl & Kremenak, 1966). It has been widely assumed that some basal level of auditory skill is related to 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), and synthesis (sound blending). The most thoroughly investigated area of auditory perception is auditory discrimination (Witkin, 1969). Numerous researchers have found that skill in auditory discrimination correlates moderately with reading achievement (e.g., Benger, 1968; Morency, 1968; Oakland, 1969; Peck, 1977) and a minimal level of auditory discrimination is generally assumed

to be necessary for the normal acquisition of reading and general verbal skills (e.g., Deutsch, 1964). Auditory memory and auditory sequential memory have also been investigated by many researchers. Although the research is not conclusive, it appears that impairments in memory are related to reading disabilities (Witkin, 1969). Numerous researchers have reported significant correlations between reading achievement and memory (e.g., Badian, 1977; Boyd & Butler, 1971; Morency, 1968; Peck, 1977; Poling, 1953).

Two auditory perceptual skills which have received relatively little research attention are auditory closure (analysis) and sound blending (synthesis). These skills have been suggested as providing possible clues to reading

JEAN R. HARBER, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Volume 3, Summer 1980 19



performance (Finkenbinder, 1972) and sound blending has been suggested as a component of the decoding process (Richardson & Bradley, 1974).

Most researchers who have studied the relationship of sound blending to reading in primary-grade children have reported statistically significant correlations between the two skills. A recent review article (Richardson, DiBenedetto, & Bradley, 1977) as well as this author's literature search note three types of studies: studies which compared good and poor readers, studies which determined concurrent relationships, and studies which determined predictive relationships. Of those com- paring the performance of good and poor readers on sound blending tasks, most reported that the two groups perform significantly differently (see Table 1). However, a word of caution is in order. As Hammill and Larsen (1974) have pointed out, when youngsters are separated into groups on the basis of reading ability, such groups may also differ in intel- lectual ability. Thus, it is difficult to determine the influence of mental ability in research studies which did not include a control for intelligence.

The studies which determined concurrent relationships between sound blending and reading achievement reported low to moderate correlation coefficients (see Table 1). The effect of intelligence was controlled for in only some of these studies. Investigations of predictive relationships between sound blending and reading achievement also yielded low to moderate correlation coefficients. No studies in this group controlled for intelligence (see Table 1). When uncontrolled, intelligence tends to inflate the resulting coefficients, thereby suggesting that the true predictive relationship between sound blending and reading achievement is somewhat lower than suggested by coefficients.

Researchers and educators who have reviewed the available literature have come to different conclusions regarding the significance of the relationship of sound blending and reading achievement. In a review of 33 studies which used correlational procedures to examine the relationship of reading to various auditory perceptual measures, Ham- mill and Larsen (1974) concluded that co-

efficients associated with sound blending "were significant but too low for useful prediction" (p. 431). Yet, they stressed the need for additional research in this area. In their review of 13 studies (six of which were reviewed by Hammill & Larsen, 1974) fo- cusing on the relationship between sound blending and reading achievement, Richard- son et al. (1977), however, concluded that there is an educationally meaningful relationship between these skills. Concerning auditory perception in general, Sabatino (1973) stated that "a relationship between reading failure and auditory functioning is now well established" (p. 61). In contrast, Lyon (1977), in his review of the research on the role of auditory perception in the reading process, concluded that the literature "does not support the view that intact auditory-perceptual skills are necessary for the adequate development of reading ability" (p. 570). Very appropriately, Lyon pointed out that correlational studies must be interpreted cautiously; correlation coefficients describe relationships between variables, but they do not imply causation.

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 least, a helpful skill in the acquisition of reading (Finkenbinder, 1972; Fox & Routh, 1976; Kass, 1966; Kroth, 1971; Oakland & Williams, 1971). Three of the six studies located on the relationship between auditory closure performance and reading achievement compared good and poor readers on auditory closure tasks; two found no significant differences and one found differences which approached, but did not reach statistical significance (see Table 2). Studies which determined concurrent and/or predictive relationships between auditory closure and reading achievement reported low to moderate coefficients (see Table 2). Intelligence was controlled in only two of the six studies. As was previously mentioned, when uncontrolled, intelligence tends to inflate the resulting correlations, thus suggesting that the true magnitude of the relationship is somewhat lower than it appears. In sum, a review of the literature indicates that the available research is inconclusive concerning the re-

20 Learning Disability Quarterly



TABLE 1

Summary of Sound Blending Studies

Characteristics Test Instruments Study of Subjects N Reading Achievement Sound Blending Findings

Comparison of Good and Poor Readers

Bond (1935) 2nd & 3rd graders, 128 Gates Primary Reading Author's test Good readers obtained matched for sex Test a higher mean score and IQ (V= 15.2) on blending

task than poor readers

( = 9.5).

Kass (1966) 2nd-4th graders, 21 Monroe fDagnostic ITPA, sound Standardization sample IQ > 85, reading Reading Test blending subtest obtained significantly problems compared higher scores on sound with ITPA (1961) blending than children standardization with reading problems sample (p < .001).

Conners, Kramer, lst-6th graders, 148 Teacher ratings Author's test Achieving group & Guerra normal IQ scored significantly (1969) higher on blending

task than nonachieving group (p < .001).

Golden & Steiner 2nd graders, 20 Gates Advanced ITPA, sound Good readers scored (1969) matched for IQ Primary Paragraph blending subtest significantly higher

and age Reading Test on sound blending than Gates-McKillop Reading poor readers (p < .01). Diagnostic Tests, Oral section

Flynn & Byrne 3rd graders 39 Iowa Test of Monroe Diagnostic Advanced readers obtained (1970) Basic Skills, Reading Aptitude significantly higher

Reading subtest Test, sound scores on the Monroe blending subtest, (p <.05) and on the author's test author's test (p< .001)

than retarded readers.

Macione (1970) 2nd- & 3rd- 56 American School ITPA, sound Disabled readers scored grade males, Achievement Tests blending subtest significantly higher on matched for sound blending than IQ & age nondisabled readers

(p<.05).

Sears (1970) 2nd-grade males, 30 Engelmann Basic ITPA, sound No significant difference normal IQ Concept Inventory blending subtest on sound blending

performance between group reading at grade level and group reading below grade level.

Larsen, Rogers, & Learning disabled & 89 Stanford Reading ITPA, sound No significant difference Sowell (1976) 4th graders, average Achievement Test blending subtest on sound blending

IQ, matched for age performance between & sex groups.




TABLE 1 (Continued) Summary of Sound Blending Studies


Concurrent Correlations

Gates, Bond & 1st graders 97 Gates Primary Reading Bond's (1935) .52 Russell (1939) Test. Criterion-Refer- test

enced Tests

Ewers (1950) 9-12th graders 40 Gray Standardized Author's test .46-.60 (two-syllable Oral Reading Para.- blending & graphs Test reading) Iowa Silent Reading .19-.23 (letter blendring Test & reading)

Mulder & Curtin 4th graders 63 Iowa Test of Basic Skills Author's test .44 (1955)

Chall, Roswell, & lst-4th graders 40 Metropolitan Achieve. Roswell-Chall .26-.66 Blumenthal ment Test Auditory Blending (1963) Gray Standardized Test

Oral Reading Paragraph Test. Roswell-Chall Diagnostic Test of Word Analysis Skills

Bruininks (1969) 3rd graders 105 Metropolitan Achieve- Roswell-Chall .30 with IQ controlled ment Test Auditory Blending .47 without controlling

Test for IQ

Balmuth (1971) lst-6th 252 SilentReading Author's Test .56, .66 graders

Rosner & Simon K-6th graders 284 Stanford Achievement Author's Test .10-.69 with IQ (1971) Test, Language Arts controlled

subtests .53-.84 without controlling for IQ

Eldins (1972a) 3rd graders 144 St. Lucia (Cloze) ITPA, sound .33 Reading Comprehen- blending subtest slon Test St. Lucia Graded Word Recognition Test Neale Oral Reading Test

Schonell Reading Comprehension Test

Gallistel, Boyle, 1st-grade, 58 Wide Range Achieve- ITPA, sound .14-.35 Curran, & low-achieving ment Test, Reading blending subtest Hawthorne readers Recognition. Gallistel-

(1972) Ellis Linguistic Reading & Spelling Test






Hare (1977) 2nd graders. 81 Stanford Achievement ITPA, sound .32 (paragraph reading normal IQ, Test. Paragraph blending subtest & blending) normal achievers, Meaning subtest .17 (reading recognition low Frostig DTVP Wide Range Achieve- & blending) scores ment Test,

Reading Recognition subtest

Harber (1979) Learning disabled 109 Peabody Individual ITPA, sound .31 (LD-reading & second graders, Achievement Test, blending subtest recognition & blending) matched for age Reading Recognition & .38 (Normal-reading

Reading Comprehen- recognition & blending) sion subtests -.04 (LD-reading

comprehension & blending)

.34 (N - reading comprehension & blending)

Predictive Correlations

Gates (1939) 1st graders 154 Gates Primary Author's Test .10-.54 Reading Test Criterion-Referenced test

Gates, Bond, & 1st graders 97 Gates Primary Bond's (1935) .29-.42 Russell (1939) Reading Test test

Criterion-Referenced tests

Chall, Roswell, lst-4th graders 40 Metropolitan Achieve- Roswell-Chall .30-.57 & Blumenthal ment Test Auditory Blending (1963) Gray Standardized Test

Oral Reading Paragraphs Test Roswell-Chall Diagnostic Test of Word Analysis Skills

Dykstra (1966) 1st graders 632 Gates Primary Monroe .24 Reading Test Diagnostic Reading

Aptitude Test Sound blending subtest

McNinch (1971) 1st graders 117 SRA Achievement Roswell-Chall .33 Series Auditory Blending

Test






Finkenbinder K-3rd graders 242 Wide Range ITPA, sound Sound blending provides (1972) Achievement Test, blending subtest important clues to

Reading Recog- word-attack skills. nition subtest Sound blending, in

combination with IQ and CA, consistently predicts reading performance in grades 1-3.

Gallistel, Boyle, 1st grade, low- 58 Wide Range ITPA, sound .33-.35 Curran, & achieving readers Achievement Test, blending subtest Hawthorne Reading Recog- (1972) nition subtest,

Gallistel-Ellis Linguistic Reading and Spelling tests

McNinch & 1st graders 55 Stanford Achieve- Author's test .44 (word recognition Richmond ment Test & blending) (1972) .32 (paragraph

reading & blending) .29 (vocabulary &

blending)

lationship between auditory closure and reading achievement.

While several practitioners have noted that learning disabled children often experience difficulties with sound blending and/or auditory closure (Conners, Kramer, & Guerra, 1969; Katz & Illmer, 1972; Kroth, 1971), only limited empirical data can be found to support or refute such an assumption. Only two of the sound blending studies utilized learning disabled subjects. Larsen, Rogers, and Sowell (1976) reported a statistically significant, albeit low, correlation between reading recognition and blending with intelligence and chronological age controlled in learning disabled subjects, but a nonsignificant correlation between reading comprehension and blending. No studies have been reported

which examined the relationship between auditory closure and reading performance in learning disabled youngsters.

McGovern (1976) studied the performance of learning disabled/culturally different and non-learning disabled/culturally different children (matched for IQ) on four auditory perceptual tasks (i.e., discrimination, sequential memory, closure, and sound blending). She found that the two groups performed significantly differently on all four tasks. How- ever, it was not possible to determine whether her findings were due to learning disabilities or factors such as dialect.

The current study attempted to determine the degree of relationship between sound blending and auditory closure and reading performance in learning disabled subjects.




TABLE 2 Summary of Auditory Closure Studies

Characteristics Test Instruments Study of Subjects N Reading Achievement Auditory Closure Findings

Comparison of Good and Poor Readers

Golden & Steiner 2nd graders, 20 Gates Advanced ITPA, auditory Good readers scored (1969) matched for Primary Paragraph closure subtest higher on auditory

IQ & age Test closure than poor readers;

Gates-McKillop difference approached. Reading Diagnostic but did not reach

Tests, Oral section significance (p<. 10).

Macione (1970) 2nd- & 3rd- 56 American School ITPA, auditory No significant differ-

grade males, Achievement Tests closure subtest ence on auditory closure matched for performance between

IQ disabled & nondisabled readers.

Sears (1970) 2nd-grade 30 Engelmann Basic ITPA, auditory No significant difference males, normal Concept Inventory closure subtest on auditory closure

performance between group reading at grade level & group reading below grade level.

Concurrent Correlations

Elkins (1972a) 3rd graders 144 St. Lucia (Cloze) ITPA, auditory .40

Reading Compre. closure subtest hension Test St. Lucia Graded Word Recognition Test Neale Oral Reading Test Schonell Reading Comprehension Test

Gallistel, Boyle, 1st grade, 58 Wide Range Achieve- ITPA, auditory .13-.31

Curran, & low-achieving ment Test, Reading closure subtest Hawthorne readers Recognition subtest

(1972) Gallistel-Ellis Linguistic Reading & Spelling Test

Predictive Correlations

Finkenbinder K-3rd grade 242 Wide Range Achieve- ITPA, auditory Auditory closure could

(1972) ment Test, closure subtest provide essential clues

Reading Recognition to word-attack skills in Subtest the phonetic approach to

reading.

Gallistel, Boyle, 1st grade, 58 Wide Range Achieve- ITPA, auditory .20-.30 Curran & low-achieving ment Test, Reading closure subtest Hawthorne readers Recognition Subtest

(1972) Gallistel-Ellis Linguistic Reading & Spelling Test




Three reading measures were used in order to determine if the magnitude of the relationships differed when correlating sound blending and auditory closure with word analysis skills, oral reading, and silent reading performance. Intelligence and chronological age were partialed out in order to control for the effects of these variables.

METHOD Subjects

Seventy-six children identified as learning disabled according to prevailing guidelines participated in the study. Learning disabled subjects were selected according to the following criteria: (1) evidence of an academic deficit sufficient to warrant special education services, (2) intelligence quotients in the average or above-average range, (3) no physical, sensory, or primary emotional problems, and (4) age between 6-0 and 10-0. Mean chronological age was 8-5 years and mean IQ was 93.59. Reading performance varied from preprimer through third-grade levels; the mean reading performance was beginning second-grade level.

Procedures The following test instruments were utilized.

Sound blending ability was measured by the Sound Blending subtest of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968), while auditory closure was measured by the Auditory Clo- sure subtest of the ITPA. The Word Recog- nition and Word Analysis subtest of the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (Durrell, 1955) was used to measure word analysis skills. Subjects who were unable to read at least ten words on this subtest were also administered the Hearing Sounds in Words subtest of the Durrell. The Oral Reading subtest was used to measure silent reading. All subjects were tested individually. The order of the tasks remained constant for all subjects. While the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty has been criticized because of its lack of reliability and validity data (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1978; Wallace & Larsen, 1978), others have praised the test for its adequacy for assessing reading difficulties (Otto, McMenemy, & Smith, 1973) and for its ease and clarity of administration and

scoring (Wallace & Larsen, 1978). On bal- ance, the Durrell was judged as an appro- priate instrument for the study because it yields information about the specific reading skills of interest.

Statistical Technique Second-order partial correlational proce-

dures were utilized in order to determine the relationship between auditory perceptual skills and reading skills, without the contaminating influence of intelligence and chronological age. To determine whether the relationships were substantial enough to be of educational value, it was necessary to establish a mini- mum level at which the correlation coefficients attain practical significance. In order to maintain consistency, the procedure intro- duced by Hammill and Larsen (1974) was employed in this study. Hammill and Larsen reviewed the literature and found that Guilford (1956) suggested that educationally significant correlation coefficients must reach .3 since coefficients below that level indicate "negligible relationships" between the variables (Hammill & Larsen, 1974, p. 430), while Garrett (1954) "suggested that only coefficients of .4 or above are useful, as lesser values denote negligible or, at best, slight relationships" (Hammill & Larsen, 1974, p. 430). Hammill and Larsen (1974) selected .35 "as the cutoff point between coefficients with practical significance and those without" (p. 430). Differences between resulting correlation coefficients were tested for significance utilizing the Z statistic.

RESULTS Zero- and second-order partial correlations

are presented in Table 3. Only one coefficient, that between auditory closure and word analysis skills, reached the established level of significance with the effects of intelligence and age partialed out.

The magnitude of the correlations was greater for word-attack skills than for oral reading and greater for oral reading than for silent reading. However, the differences in magnitude were not statistically significant (Z (73) = .69 to 1.85 for the second-order partial correlations). The correlations coefficients were greater for auditory closure and each reading skill than for sound blending;




TABLE 3 Correlation Coefficients Between Auditory Perceptual and Reading Skills

Zero-Order Correlation - Second-Order Correlation - Variables Correlated Coefficient CoefficientP

Sound Blending with Word Analysis Skills .40 <.001 .28 <.01 Sound Blending with Oral Reading .32 <.005

,19 <.05

Sound Blending with Silent Reading ,20 <,05

.09 NS Auditory Closure with Word Analysis Skills .44 <.001 .35 <.001 Auditory Closure with Oral Reading .42 <.001 .32

<.001 Auditory Closure with Silent Reading .38 <.001 .29 <.01

NS = Not Significant

however, the differences did not reach statistical significance (Z (73) = .69 to 1.85 for the second-order partial correlations).

DISCUSSION The results of this study are consonant

with the previously reported research ad- dressing the relationship between auditory perceptual and reading skills. The correlation coefficients decrease in magnitude substantially when the effects of intelligence and chronological age are partialed out. This finding lends support to the suggestion that the correlation coefficients reported in studies which did not control for intelligence may in reality be inflated. With the effects of intelligence and age controlled, the obtained coefficients remain statistically significant in five of the six cases, but are too small to be of educational value in all but one instance. This relationship, between auditory closure and word-analysis skills, merits further investigation in light of the suggestion that auditory closure is a necessary or at least helpful skill in the acquisition of reading (Finkenbinder, 1972; Fox & Routh, 1976; Kass, 1966; Kroth, 1971; Oakland & Williams, 1971). Furthermore it has been suggested (Elkins, 1972) that auditory closure skill becomes more critical to reading success at the third-grade level. As subjects in the current study had not yet reached that level of reading, the relationship between auditory closure and reading may be found to be more

significant among more advanced readers, a suggestion further supported by Kaluger and Kolson's (1978) statement that ability in phonetic analysis (closure) is needed by the middle of the second-grade level because, by this time, too many words look alike for children to successfully discriminate among them through visual clues alone. Kaluger and Kolson suggest that at this time children with auditory perceptual problems begin having difficulty with reading.

The findings of the present study are consistent with those of Chall, Roswell, and Blumenthal (1963), McNinch and Richmond (1972), and Harber (1979) who reported that sound blending ability is more highly related to word analysis skills than oral reading and more highly related to oral reading than to silent reading. However, as has been noted, the difference in magnitude of the correlations did not reach significance.

Based on this sample of learning disabled children, the data suggest that the relationships between two auditory perceptual skills, closure and sound blending, and reading skills (i.e., word analysis skills, oral reading, and silent reading) is relatively small. These relationships need to be studied further, particularly the relationship between auditory closure and reading performance, in children who are somewhat more advanced in reading than the sample utilized in the present investigation.




REFERENCES Badian, N.A. Auditory-visual integration, auditory

memory, and reading in retarded and adequate readers. 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 Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 052-912). Benger, K. The relationships of perception, person-

ality, intelligence and grade one reading achievement. In H.K. Smith (Ed.), Perception and reading. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Convention, Vol. 12, Pt. 4. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1968.

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

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

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

Chall, J., Roswell, F.G., & Blumenthal, S.H.

Auditory blending ability: A factor in success in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 1963, 17, 113-118.

Conners, C.K., Kramer, K., & Guerra, F. Auditory synthesis and dichotic listening in children with learning 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 of Reading Difficulty. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955.

Dykstra, R. Auditory discrimination abilities and beginning reading achievement. Reading Re- search Quarterly, 1966, 1, 5-33.

Elkins, J. Children with reading disabilities. In J. Elkins (Ed.), The identification and treatment of children with learning disabilities. Brisbane, Australia: Fred & Eleanor Schonell Educational Research Centre, University of Queensland, 1972. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 087 146). (a)

Elkins, J. Some psycholinguistic aspects of the differential diagnosis of reading disability in grades 1 and 2. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Queensland, Australia, 1972. (b) Ewers, D.W.F. Relations between auditory abilities

and reading abilities: A problem in psycho- metrics. 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 Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 619A (University Micro- film No. 72-13, 849).

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

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

Garrett, H.E. Statistics in psychology and education. New York: Longmans Green, 1954.

Gallistel, E., Boyle, M., Curran, L., & Haw- thorne, 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, MN: Minneapolis Research Development and Demonstration Center in Education of the

Handicapped Children, University of Minnesota, 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.

Gates, A.I., Bond, G.L., & Russell, D.H. Methods of determining readiness. New York: Teachers College: Columbia University, 1939.

Golden, N.E., & Steiner, S.R. Auditory and visual functions in good and poor readers. Journal of Learning 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 Hor- izons, 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.

Kaluger, G., & Kolson, C.L. Reading and learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: 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., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Kroth, J.A. A programmed primer in learning disabilities. Springfield, IL: 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, J.E. A comparison of auditory perception between learning disabled and non- learning disabled culturally different pupils (Doc- toral dissertation, University of New Orleans, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37, 232A. (University Microfilms No. 746-14, 379).

McNinch, G. Auditory perceptual factors and measured first-grade reading achievement. Read- ing Research Quarterly, 1971, 6, 472-492.

McNinch, G., & Richmond, M. Auditory perceptual tasks as predictors of first-grade reading success. 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, DE: IRA, 1968.

Muehl, S., & Kremenak, S. Ability to match information within and between auditory and visual sense 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. The

Elementary School Journal, 1955, 56, 121-123. Oakland, T.D. Auditory discrimination and socio-

economic status as correlates of reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1969, 2, 324- 329.

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

Otto, W., McMenemy, R.A., & Smith, R.J. Corrective and remedial teaching (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Salvia, J., &Ysseldyke, J.E. Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.

Sears, C.R. A comparison of the basic language concepts and psycholinguistic abilities of second- grade boys who demonstrate average and below average levels of reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, 1758A (University Microfilm No. 69-19, 233).

Wallace, G., & Larsen, S.C. Educational assessment of learning problems: Testing for teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978.

Witkin, B.R. Auditory perception-implications for language development. Journal of Research and

Development in Education, 1969, 3, 53-71.




Documents

Auditory Perception and Reading: Another Look