↓ Skip to main content

Phonemic—Morphemic dissociation in university students with dyslexia: an index of reading compensation?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Dyslexia, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 248)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
Phonemic—Morphemic dissociation in university students with dyslexia: an index of reading compensation?
Published in
Annals of Dyslexia, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11881-016-0138-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eddy Cavalli, Lynne G. Duncan, Carsten Elbro, Abdessadek El Ahmadi, Pascale Colé

Abstract

A phonological deficit constitutes a primary cause of developmental dyslexia, which persists into adulthood and can explain some aspects of their reading impairment. Nevertheless, some dyslexic adults successfully manage to study at university level, although very little is currently known about how they achieve this. The present study investigated at both the individual and group levels, whether the development of another oral language skill, namely, morphological knowledge, can be preserved and dissociated from the development of phonological knowledge. Reading, phonological, and morphological abilities were measured in 20 dyslexic and 20 non-dyslexic university students. The results confirmed the persistence of deficits in phonological but not morphological abilities, thereby revealing a dissociation in the development of these two skills. Moreover, the magnitude of the dissociation correlated with reading level. The outcome supports the claim that university students with dyslexia may compensate for phonological weaknesses by drawing on morphological knowledge in reading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 130 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 34%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Linguistics 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 38 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,097,137
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#11
of 248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,058
of 319,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them