↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Intervention Principles in Emergent Literacy in Children at Risk of Developmental Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Learning Disabilities, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Bottom-Up and Top-Down Intervention Principles in Emergent Literacy in Children at Risk of Developmental Dyslexia: A Longitudinal Study
Published in
Journal of Learning Disabilities, March 2011
DOI 10.1177/0022219410391188
Pubmed ID
Authors

Turid Helland, Tomas Tjus, Marit Hovden, Sonja Ofte, Mikael Heimann

Abstract

This longitudinal study focused on the effects of two different principles of intervention in children at risk of developing dyslexia from 5 to 8 years old. The children were selected on the basis of a background questionnaire given to parents and preschool teachers, with cognitive and functional magnetic resonance imaging results substantiating group differences in neuropsychological processes associated with phonology, orthography, and phoneme-grapheme correspondence (i.e., alphabetic principle). The two principles of intervention were bottom-up (BU), "from sound to meaning", and top-down (TD), "from meaning to sound." Thus, four subgroups were established: risk/BU, risk/TD, control/BU, and control/TD. Computer-based training took place for 2 months every spring, and cognitive assessments were performed each fall of the project period. Measures of preliteracy skills for reading and spelling were phonological awareness, working memory, verbal learning, and letter knowledge. Literacy skills were assessed by word reading and spelling. At project end the control group scored significantly above age norm, whereas the risk group scored within the norm. In the at-risk group, training based on the BU principle had the strongest effects on phonological awareness and working memory scores, whereas training based on the TD principle had the strongest effects on verbal learning, letter knowledge, and literacy scores. It was concluded that appropriate, specific, data-based intervention starting in preschool can mitigate literacy impairment and that interventions should contain BU training for preliteracy skills and TD training for literacy training.

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 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 226 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 47 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 30%
Social Sciences 40 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Linguistics 11 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 4%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 60 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,371,959
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Learning Disabilities
#658
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,931
of 108,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Learning Disabilities
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 108,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.