Independence of Reading and Spelling in Backward and Normal Readers

Develop. Med. Child Neurol. 1979, 21, 504-514

Independence of Reading and Spelling in Backward and Normal Readers

Lynette Bradley P . E . Bryant

Introduction Those who are concerned with diagnos-

ing learning problems will know that it is at least as important to know how a child spells as to know how he reads. Children who have difficulty learning to read typically cannot spell words properly either (Naidoo 1972, Boder 1973, Nelson and Warrington 1974, Frith 1976). Yet very little is known about the nature of their difficulties with spelling, or about the relationship between spelling and reading problems. These are questions of obvious practical importance. One needs to know, as Yule (1976) has pointed out, whether reading and spelling difficulties require the same or different remedial techniques.

We need to know then about the connexion or lack of connexion between reading and spelling problems, and this question leads us inevitably to normal children who have no particular problem. Do they learn to read and spell in the same way, and do they use the same strategies and cues when they spell as when they read?

Very little is known about this question. Children on the whole read more words than they spell (Boder 1973), but this in itself is not surprising because to spell a word is to produce it and producing any kind of language is usually more difficult than deciphering it. Otherwise there

seems to be nothing to tell us whether backward and normal readers use the same cues and face the same hurdles in learning to read and to spell.

The simple way of answering this problem is to give backward and normal readers the same words to read and to spell on different occasions. If they read and spell in the same way they should read roughly the same words as they spell, and vice versa (always allowing for the possibility that reading is generally easier than spelling and therefore that there may be words which they read but do not spell). But if the cues they use in reading are not those they employ in spelling they will probably spell some words and read others; in this case they should read some words which they cannot spell and also spell some words which they cannot read. Such a discrepancy between the two skills would indeed mean that they were to some extent independent.

This was the question investigated in our first experiment with a large group of children of normal intelligence whose spelling and reading were very poor, and a group of children with no such difficulties.

All the backward readers had been taught in the classroom by a mixture of ‘look and say’ and phonetic methods. The majority were also receiving remedial help from specialist teachers, again involv-

Correspondence to Dr. Lynette Bradley, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD.

5 04

ing both these methods. The normal readers, who were younger (see below), were also at schools in which both methods were used. Some were too young to have received much instruction, while others had been taught to read and spell using both methods.

Method Composition of Groups

There were two groups of children. One was a large group of 62 backward readers and spellers (56 boys, 6 girls), all of whom had IQS around or above average but who were at least 18 months behind in reading and spelling, as assessed by the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability and the Schonell Graded Word Spelling Tests. Their IQS, reading and spelling ages are presented in Table I. All these children attended normal schools but had been referred to the psychological service because of educational failure. Psycholog- ical investigation suggested that their educational retardation was not the result of primary emotional disturbance or of organic aetiology. Following the psychological investigation the children had remained in their normal schools but attended remedial reading centres or received help from peripatetic remedial teachers.

The other group consisted of 30 much younger children (28 boys, 2 girls) whose reading levels were normal for their age and the same as those of the backward- reading group (Table I). These children were drawn from several primary schools whose intake represented a cross-section of the local population and included children from all social backgrounds, living in both local-authority and privately owned houses.

This type of comparison is unusual, in that most studies comparing backward and normal readers match them on their age and IQ, the only difference between

LYNE'ITE BRADLEY P. E. BRYANT

505

the two groups being in their reading levels. This means that the absolute reading level of the backward-reading group is usually much the lower of the two. The trouble with that design is that any difference between the two groups might be the result rather than the cause of the reading difficulty. The backward readers may behave differently simply because they have been deprived of the experiences which normally go with reading. In our design the two groups have reached the same standard in reading, which we think is a better method of comparison. How- ever, a possible factor which we could not assess was that the backward readers may have had a history of failure in their relationship with their teachers and with written material, and may have learnt strategies of not trying or of conceding early failure. During our experiment they may have learnt that they were competent to achieve the tasks and that the tester was reassuring. This problem also applies to the more traditional comparison between backward and normal readers.

Procedure All the children were given the same 18

words to read in one session and to write in another. The words were all phonetically regular, in that they all could be con4 structed on a letter by letter basis from the sounds typically associated with their individual letters. The words were: pin, leg, bed, rub, cot, fit, hunt, grab, flap, dent, crop, slid, upset, sunlit, content, oldest, upon, pretend. In the reading session the 18 words were all presented to the child on cards, one word to a card and one card at a time. The child was simply asked to read each word. In the spelling session the words were read out to each child, one by one. The order of the two sessions was systematically varied between children. The interval between presentations was varied from one child to

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY. 1979, 21

another, but was never less than 1% hours. In the spelling session, after each word was read out it was embedded in a meaningful sentence spoken by the exper- imenter, to make sure the child understood what it meant: he was then asked to write it down.

Scoring The results were analysed in two differ-

ent ways. The first was quantitative. We looked at

children's relative success and failure in reading and spelling. The questions we asked were (1) whether there were any children who could spell as well as or better than they could read, and (2) whether there were words which children could spell without reading and w u d s which they could read without spelling.

The second measure was qualitative. We tried to discover whether the pattern of errors in reading and in spelling was the same. In particular, we were concerned with the extent to which mis-spelt and mis- read words were connec ted

phonologically with the correct response.

Results Quantitative Analysis

As we expected, over-all the children in both groups read more words successfully than they spelled correctly. However, as Table I1 shows, some children in both groups did not conform to this general pattern; 29 per cent of the backward readers and 23 per cent of the normal readers actually spelled more words correctly than they read.

We looked to see how many children did spell at least one word without manag- ing to read it, and found that 79 per cent of the backward readers and 63 per cent of the normal readers did so. So there is the apparently surprising pattern of children being able to spell words which they cannot read.

In order to measure the extent of this pattern, we noted how many of the 18 words each child both read and spelled properly (RS words), how many he failed

TABLE I Reading and spelling ages and 1Qs of children in Experiment 1

Reading age* Spelling age? (yrs:mths) (yrs:mths)

No. Chronological IQ age (yrs:mths) (WISC)

Backward readers 62 Mean 10:4 108.7 7:7 6:lO

Normal readers 30 Mean 6: 10 107.9 7% 7:2

Range 8:4-13:5 93-137 6:0-9:4 5:0-8:9

Range 5:8-8:7 93-119 6:O-9:2 5:1-10:2

'Neale Analysis of Reading. tbchonell.

TABLE I1 Success in reading and spelling 18 words (Experiment 1)

Children No. No. words No. words Children read correctly spelled correctly reading more spelling more

(mean) (mean) words words than they spelled (%) than they read (%)

Backward readers 62 10.8 10.0 50 29 Normal readers 30 12.7 12.0 50 23

506

LYNETTE BRADLEY P. E. BRYANT

either to read or to spell (RS words), how many he read but did not spell (RS words), and how many he did not read but did spell properly (Rs words). The first two categories tell us very little about the relationships between reading and spelling, since a child may or may not be using the same cues when he reads and spells (RS), or fails to read and spell (RS), the same word. The third and fourth categories, the discrepant ones, are more valuable in that if we discover that children often read some words which they cannot spell, and also spell other words without being able to read them, we can be fairly sure that the two skills are to some extent independent.

Table I11 shows the extent of the four possible categories. It demonstrates that both discrepant categories (RS and Rs) do exist to an appreciable extent in both groups. Thus children do not read all the words they spell, just as they do not spell all the words they read. This suggests that children of around 6Y2 to 7% years and backward readers whose reading ability is around seven years do not always use the same cues when they read and when they spell. Their reading and spelling are to some extent independent.

There are two more questions about this apparent separation between reading and spelling: is it greater in one group than in the other? and, within each group, how is it related to the reading skills of the members of that group?

The answer to the first question is that the disconnexion seems to be more

marked among the backward readers, They produce a greater absolute number of instances of both discrepant categories (RS and Rs) (Table 111). The difference between the groups is significant in the case of the words read but not spelled (t = 2.08, df 91, p <0.05) and approaches significance in the case of the words spelled but not read (t = 1.91, df 91).

These two discrepant categories can also be considered proportionally, i.e. what proportion of the words which each child could read did he fail to spell? This ratio between the words he read but did not spell to the total number of words he read can be called RS:R. Similarly, the ratio of words he spelled but did not read to the total number of words he spelled will be RXS.

We found a clear difference between the two groups when we gave each child these two ratio scores. Both scores were higher in the backward reading group (Table IV), which suggests that the discrepancy between reading and spelling was greater among the backward readers. t-tests of the two ratio scores (logarithmically transformed) demonstrated that this difference between groups was significant (t = 2.41 for the RS:R and 2.57 for the Rs:s scores; df 91, p ~ 0 . 0 2 in both cases).

Turning to the second question, there was no consistent relationship between reading age (RA) and the absolute number of RS or Rs scores in either group. The correlations between RA and RS were - 0.04 in the backward readers and 0.24 in

TABLE I11 Mean number of words (out of 18) in four possible categories (Experiment 1)

No. Words read Words neither Words read but Words not read and spelled read nor spelled not spelled but spelled

Backward readers 62 Mean 7.7 SD 5.1

4.9 5.2

3.1 2.3

2.3 2.1

Normal readers 30 Mean 10.6 3.9 2.1 1.4 SD 6.1 5.8 2.1 1.9

507


the normal readers. The correlation between RA and iis scores was 0.19 in the backward readers and -0.12 in the normal readers.

However, stronger and more consistent relationships were found between reading age and the two ratio scores. The correlation between RA and RS:R (transformed logarithmically) was -0.25 for the backward readers and -0.31 for the normal readers. The equivalent correlations between RA and Rs:s were -0.39 and -0.29. These negative correlations suggest that this separation between reading and spelling declines in both groups of children as they become more skilled.

The regression coefficients support this suggestion. For the RS:R scores the figure was y = 1.65-0.64~ for the backward readers and y = 0.91 - 0 . 5 8 ~ for the normal readers (where y is the ratio and x the reading age). The equivalent figures for the Es:s scores were y = 1.44-0 .69~ and 1 .14-0 .63~. The negative slope, and therefore the decline with greater reading age, is very much the same in both groups. We conclude that the gap which we have identified between reading and spelling narrows as children become more proficient, and narrows in much the same way in both groups.

Qualitative Analysis We have shown that young children and

backward readers do use different cues to read and to spell, but we still need to know what these cues are. The clearest way to

establish them is to look at the pattern of errors these children make in reading and spelling.

Phonological cues are the most obvious to look at, All the words used in this experiment could easily be constructed phonologically, in that the individual sounds which made them up .were clearly represented by the letters in the word. This allowed us to ask whether the children were trying to use sound patterns when they read and spelled the words. We did this by looking at their reading and spelling errors to see if there were any phonological connexions between them and the correct words.

We looked at reading mistakes simply to see if the word the children read out had any sounds in common with the word they should have read. In the case of spelling mistakes, we looked to see to what extent the letters the children wrote represented the sounds of the word they had been given.

In both cases we divided the errors into three categories: (1) words which had no connexion with the correct word, (2) words which had one sound in common with it, and (3) words which hadmore than one sound in common. If the correct word was ‘rub’ and the child read ‘map’ or spelled it as ‘np’ we scored these errors as having no connexion. Examples of errors which have one connexion were children reading ‘rub’ as ‘red’ or spelling it as ‘rod‘ ; examples of errors with more than one sound in common with the correct word were ‘fit’ read as ‘first’ or spelled as ‘fet’.

TABLE IV Means of two ratio scores (Experiment 1)

Ratio of words read but not spelled to

read by each child

Ratio of words spelled but not read to total

by each child No total number of words number of words spelled

Backward readers 62 Mean .36 .26 SD .28 .26

Normal readers 30 Mean *23 SD .21

.14 *23

508


The results showed a clear difference between reading and spelling. The phonological connexions were far greater when the children spelled than when they read. As Table V shows, more of the mis- spelled words had more than one sound in common with the correct word than did the mis-read words. More of the mis-read words than the mis-spelled had no connexion at all with the correct word.

The two groups produced very similar scores, and there was no significant difference between them as measured by xz tests in any of the three categories of errors. Nor was there any sign of an over-all difference between those above and below the average reading level in either group.

Here, then, is evidence that young children and backward readers depend primarily on phonological cues when they spell, though not when they read. This idea can be tested.

Discussion There is a wealth of evidence that

phonological cues play a central r81e in children’s learning to handle written alphabetic language, and also that children who have difficulties with phonological organisation are likely also to be backward readers (Conrad 1972, Savin 1972, Bradley and Bryant 1978). There is also ample evidence that children and adults often do not break words up into their constituent letters and

phonological segments when they read (Huey 1908, Gibson and Levin 1976, Barron and Baron 1977). When reading, people often recognise the pattern made by the whole word, using a visual cue. The apparent independence between reading and spelling in young children and backward readers could be explained in terms of these two strategies: it is possible that they use phonological cues pre- dominantly when they spell, as our qualitative analysis seems to show, and visual cues when they read.

An interesting prediction to be drawn from this hypothesis concerns the Ls words, the words which children spell but do not read. Our argument is that children can construct these words phonologically because that is how they write them, but they do not read them because they do not happen to be using a phonological code when they read. It follows that they should be able to read these words if they can be persuaded to use a phonological code when they read. On the other hand, even this should not help them with the other words they cannot read (the LS words), because having not spelled these words they probably cannot construct them phonologically. For this reason we devised a second part to the experiment, in which we looked at the effect of encouraging children to use a phonological strategy on their ability to read words which they had been unable to read before, whether they had spelled them correctly (Rs) or not (as).

TABLE V Phonological connexions between reading and spelling errors and correct words (Experiment 1)

Errors with no Errors wirh one Errors wirh more phonological connexion ro sound in common than one sound in

correct word (%) wirh correct word (%) common wirh correct word( %)

~~

Backward readers Reading 9.4 Spelling 3.4

10.9 3.6

19.7 93.0

Normal readers Reading 10.0 14.6 75.4 Spelling 4.6 4.6 90.8

509

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE A N D CHILD NEUROLOGY. 1979, 21

Second Experiment Thirty children without specific learn-

ing problems were selected from three local schools. There were equal numbers of boys and girls (mean age 6 yrs 10 mths, range 6.6-7.0 yrs).

Method The experiment was divided into two

parts. In the first part the procedure was almost identical to that of the first experiment, except for two things. Different words were used, and included several which in our view could not be constructed phonologically on a letter by letter basis. These were included because of our hypothesis about the words which are read but not spelled. If these are recognised as patterns but not constructed phonologically, then they should include a proportion of words which cannot be constructed phonologically on a letter by letter basis. These should not crop up among the category of words spelled but not read, since our hypothesis is that these are constructed phonologically. The 30 words were: tree, milk, egg, book, see, cut, in, school, sit, frog, bun, ran, out, bag, ten, pat, clock, train, light, leg, dot, pen, yet, think, dream, crowd, week, keep, from, mat.

The second difference was that we gave each child all his discrepant words (RS and Rs) twice over, to read and to spell, in order to check that these categories were reliable: in practice they were completely reliable.

The aim of the second part of the experiment, which followed about a week

after the first, was to look at the effect of encouraging a phonological strategy on helping children to read words they had not read before (the Rs and RS words). This was done by embedding these words in a list of nonsense syllables, like ‘wef‘ and ‘bip’. Every child who had in the first part spelled any words without reading them (22 of the 30 children) was given a list of words on a sheet of paper to read. The first few words, and indeed most of the words, were nonsense ones, and each child was shown how to read these strange words phonologically. All the children readily understood the instructions. Then the child was told to read out the whole list of 25 nonsense syllables, among which were embedded all the words he had not read in the first part of the experment (the Rs and RS words). Thus the lists varied from child to child.

Results In the first part of the experiment there

was again strong evidence of reading and spelling being relatively independent among young children. They read more words than they spelled, and many spelled some words which they did not read (Table VI). This means that again there was the two-way discrepancy between reading and spelling, which is strong evidence that the two activities are to some extent independent. The type of words tending to fall into the two difference categories (RS and Rs) supported our hypothesis that phonological cues tend to predominate in spelling but not in reading. The four words which

TABLE VI Mean number of words (out of 30) in four possible

categories (Experiment 2)

No. Worh read Words neither Words read Words not and spelled read nor but not read but

spelled spelled spelled

30 Mean 12.7 7.1 6.3 3.9 SD 6.1 4.2 3.4 1.9

510

LYNE’ITE BRADLEY P. E. BRYANT

were most commonly read but not spelled (RS) were‘school’, ‘light’, ‘book‘ and‘egg’, all words which cannot be constructed on a letter by letter basis. The four words which were most commonly spelled but not read (Rs) were ‘bun’, ‘mat’, ‘leg’ and ‘pat’, which are all very regular indeed. We did not analyse the errors qualitatively in this experiment because it was not possible with the irregular words.

The 22 children who did produce (Rs words had a mean score of 6.5 RS words and 4.9 17s words. In the second part of the experiment, these children were given the list of nonsense syllables, which also con- tained all the words which they had not read before: they now managed to read 3.5 (of a possible 4.9) of the Rs words but only read 1.2 (of 6.5) of the RS words.

Thus there was hardly any improvement in reading words which they had neither spelled nor read before, but there was a considerable improvement in reading words which they had not read before but had spelled. This is strong support for the suggestion that children depend on phonological cues more in spelling than in reading. When they are encouraged to use phonological codes in words which they have spelled but not read, they now begin to read them. This suggests both that young children spell phonologically and that they may fail to read some words because they are depending on other cues.

Discussion Our conclusions from this study are:

(1) that young children and backward readers often spell words in one way and read them in another; (2) that this relative independence between reading and spelling is at its strongest in the early stages of reading and among backward readers; (3) that the independence may take the form of children relying primarily on phonological segments when they spell

5

and visual wholes when they read; (4) that the discrepancy between reading and spelling cannot be attributed to teach- ing methods, since both groups, and particularly the backward readers, had been taught both to read and to spell by phonetic and ‘look and say’ methods; (5) that encouraging children to use a phonological strategy helps them read some words but not others.

These conclusions have some practical importance and are, in a way, encouraging. First, they demonstrate that it is at least as important to know how backward readers spell as to know how they read. Second, since the relative independence between spelling and reading seems to be at its strongest among backward readers, it would probably be useful to consider how the two activities could be brought closer together.

Most studies of backward readers have looked for and often revealed some deficit on their part. We, on the other hand, have found no actual deficiency. It seems from our results that two over-all strategies are involved in reading and spelling, one phonological and the other visual, nether of which is missing in backward readers. Indeed, they seem to use both, though in a particularly specialised manner. If our analysis is right, their lack of progress in reading and spelling may be the result of this specialisation in strategies rather than of an absence of a strategy. They have the right strategies but apply them too narrowly.

If this is so, what can be done about it? One obvious possibility is that backward readers would also read differently if they were encouraged in a p p r o p r i a t e circumstances to use a phonological strategy. We have established that normal children who spell some words but do not read them do begin to read them when they are encouraged to use phonological cues. This suggests three things: (1) that

11


their being able to spell these words is a good sign that they construct them phonologically ; (2) that they originally failed to read the words because they were not reading phonologically; and (3) that their reading can be improved if they use a phonological strategy in addition to the strategies they already use in reading.

The first two points are almost certainly true of backward readers, too, since they also spell words which they do not read and their spelling also seems to rely on phonological cues more than their reading does. But we do not know whether they too will read better if they are encouraged to use a phonological strategy.

There is another point to be made about the backward readers’ appa ren t reluctance to use phonological cues when they read. In another study (Bradley and Bryant 1978), we looked at children’s ability to recognise when words rhyme. (The children in that study were the same as in Experiment 1 in this paper.) We established that backward readers were very insensitive to rhyme. Furthermore, there was a strong developmental trend among the normal children, in that those who were particularly good at spotting rhymes were older, and had higher reading and spelling levels than the rest. No such pattern could be found among the backward readers, so normal children get better at detecting rhymes as their reading progresses but backward readers do not.

Understanding that ‘hat’, ‘cat’ and ‘mat’ have the sound ‘at’ in common involves

detaching the segment ‘at’ from each of the words, so our evidence about rhyming does tell us something about phonological codes. Our discovery that backward readers fail badly in this phonological task and show very little progress suggests a reason for the greater independence between reading and spelling in these children: it is possible that it is easier to apply a phonological code to spelling than to reading. Phonological production may indeed be easier than phonological recognition, and both backward and normal readers may be initially skilled enough phonologically to spell phonologically. However, the backward readers might be unable to make the jump to using such a code in reading because their phonological skills are too weak and do not progress in the normal way as their reading begins to improve.

Certainly our experiments suggest that there is an initial separation between reading and spelling among all children and that the two skills become more closely linked as the children become more experienced and more skilled with written language. Acknowledgements: We thank the Oxford Area Health Authority, The Human Development Research Unit at the Park Hospital for Children, and the SSRC for support for this research; and the Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire Education Authorities for their co-operation.

AUTHORS’ APPOINTMENTS Dr. Lynette Bradley, Research Officer; Dr. P. E. Bryant, Lecturer in Psychology; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD.

SUMMARY

To investigate how backward readers spell and the connections between their spelling and their reading, a large group of backward readers and a comparable group of normal readers were given the same words to read and spell. The two skills were surprisingly separate in both groups, in that the children could read words which they did not spell and spell words which they did not read, although the discrepancy was greater in the backward readers. Further analysis suggested that both groups used phonological cues in spelling more than in reading. This suggestion was supported in a second experiment, in which encouragement to use phonological cues changed the children’s reading patterns.

512


R&SUME Indkpendance de la lecture et de l’orthographe chez les lecteurs normaux et retard& Dans le but d‘apprkcier comment les enfants, prksentant des retards de lecture,

orthographient et prCciser les relations entre leur efficience de lecture et d‘orthographe, un groupe important d‘enfants avec retard de lecture et un groupe comparable de lecteurs normaux ont r e p des mots h lire et h orthographier. Les deux aptitudes sont apparues sCparCes de faCon surprenante dans les deux groupes en ce sens que les enfants pouvaient lire correctement des mots qu’ils n’orthographiaient pas bien et rkciproquement: la difference Ctait cependant plus grande en cas de retard de lecture. Une analyse plus pousske suggere que les deux groupes ont fait appel des rkfkrences phonktiques plut8t en orthographe qu’en lecture. Cette hypothkse est renforcke par une seconde experience au cours de laquelle un encouragement h utiliser des rkfkrences phonetiques a modifik les dispositions de lecture des enfants.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Unabhangigkeit zwischen Lesen und Buchstabieren bei Kindern, die ruckwarts lesen und

denen, die normal lesen Um zu untersuchen wie Kinder, die ruckwarts lesen, buchstabieren und um die

Beziehung zwischen ihrem Buchstabieren und ihrem Lesen herauszufinden, gab man einer grol3en Gruppe von Kindern, die ruckwarts lesen und einer vergleichbaren Gruppe von Kindern, die normal lesen, dieselben Worter zu lesen und buchstabieren. Bei beiden Gruppen waren diese beiden Fahigkeiten uberraschend unabhangig voneinander, d.h. die Kinder konnten Worter lesen aber nicht buchstabieren und andere buchstabieren aber nicht lesen, wobei die Diskrepanz bei den Kindern, die ruckwarts lesen, grol3er war. Weitere Analysen deuten darauf hin, dal3 beide Gruppen phonologische Anhaltspunkte mehr beim Buchstabieren als beim Lesen benutzten. Dies wurde durch eine zweite Untersuchung bestatigt, bei der sich durch die Ermutigung, phonologische Anhaltspunkte zu benutzen, das Lesemuster der Kinder anderte.

RESUMEN La independencia de la lectura y el deletreo en lectores retrasados y normales

Para investigar el retraso con que 10s lectores deletrean y las conexiones entre el deletreo y su lectura, a un grupo grande de lectores retrasados y a un grupo comparable de lectores normales, se les di6 las mismas palabras para leery deletrear. Las dos habilidades sorprendenetemente eran separadas en ambos grupos en el sentido de que 10s niiios podfan leer palabras que no podfan deletrear y podian deletrear palabras que no podian leer, si bien la discrepancia era mayor en 10s lectores retrasados. Analisis posteriores sugirienron que ambos grupos utilizaban claves fonol6gicas mils en el deletreo que en la lectura. Esta sugerencia vino avalada en un segundo experiment0 en el cual, el animar el us0 de claves fonol6gicas cambib el esquema de lectura de 10s niiios.

REFERENCES Barron. R. W., Baron, J. (1977) ‘How children get meaning from printed words.’ Child Development, 48, . .

587-594. - -

Boder, E. (1973) ‘Developmental dyslexia: a diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns.’ Development Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663-687.

513


Bradley, L., Bryant, P. E. (1978) ‘Difficulties in auditory organisation as a possible cause of reading backwardness.’ Nature, 271, 746-747.

Conrad, R. (1972) ‘Speech and reading.’In Kavanagh, J. F., Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.) Language by Ear and by Eye: the Relationships between Speech and Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. p. 205.

Frith, U. (1976) ‘How to read without knowing how to spell.’ Paper presented to The British Association (Lancaster Conference).

Gibson, E. J . , Levin, H. (1976) The Psychology of Reading. cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Huey, E. B. (1908) The Psychology and Pedagogy o f Reading. New York: Macmillan. (Reprinted 1968,

Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.) Naidoo, S. (1972) Specific Dyslexia. London: Pitman. Nelson, H., Warrington, E. K. (1974) ‘Developmental spelling retardation and its relation to other cognitive

abilities.’ British Journal of Psychology, 65, 265-274. Savin, H. B. (1972) ‘What the child knows about speech when he starts to learn to read.’ In Kavanagh, J. F.,

Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.) Language by Ear and by Eye: the Relationships between Speech and Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. p. 319.

Yule, W. (1976) ‘Issues and problems in remedial education.’ Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 18, 674-682.

514

Documents

Independence of Reading and Spelling in Backward and Normal Readers