↓ Skip to main content

Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Dyslexia, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
222 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
349 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance
Published in
Annals of Dyslexia, April 2009
DOI 10.1007/s11881-009-0022-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurie E. Cutting, April Materek, Carolyn A. S. Cole, Terry M. Levine, E. Mark Mahone

Abstract

Reading disability (RD) typically consists of deficits in word reading accuracy and/or reading comprehension. While it is well known that word reading accuracy deficits lead to comprehension deficits (general reading disability, GRD), less is understood about neuropsychological profiles of children who exhibit adequate word reading accuracy but nevertheless develop specific reading comprehension deficits (S-RCD). Establishing the underlying neuropsychological processes associated with different RD types is essential for ultimately understanding core neurobiological bases of reading comprehension. To this end, the present study investigated isolated and contextual word fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance in 56 9- to 14-year-old children [21 typically developing (TD), 18 GRD, and 17 S-RCD]. Results indicated that TD and S-RCD participants read isolated words at a faster rate than participants with GRD; however, both RD groups had contextual word fluency and oral language weaknesses. Additionally, S-RCD participants showed prominent weaknesses in executive function. Implications for understanding the neuropsychological bases for reading comprehension are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 349 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 342 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 21%
Student > Master 62 18%
Researcher 36 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 6%
Other 66 19%
Unknown 56 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 126 36%
Social Sciences 48 14%
Linguistics 27 8%
Neuroscience 20 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 5%
Other 43 12%
Unknown 69 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,448,111
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#85
of 247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,566
of 93,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 93,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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