↓ Skip to main content

Beyond phonological and morphological processing: pure copying as a marker of dyslexia in Chinese but not poor reading of English

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Dyslexia, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 247)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Beyond phonological and morphological processing: pure copying as a marker of dyslexia in Chinese but not poor reading of English
Published in
Annals of Dyslexia, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11881-015-0097-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia Chanda Kalindi, Catherine McBride, Xiuhong Tong, Natalie Lok Yee Wong, Kien Hoa Kevin Chung, Chia-Ying Lee

Abstract

To examine cognitive correlates of dyslexia in Chinese and reading difficulties in English as a foreign language, a total of 14 Chinese dyslexic children (DG), 16 poor readers of English (PE), and 17 poor readers of both Chinese and English (PB) were compared to a control sample (C) of 17 children, drawn from a statistically representative sample of 177 second graders. Children were tested on pure copying of unfamiliar stimuli, rapid automatized naming (RAN), phoneme deletion, syllable deletion, and morphological awareness. With children's ages and Raven's nonverbal reasoning statistically controlled, the PE and PB groups were significantly lower than the C group on phoneme deletion and RAN tasks, while the DG performed significantly better than the PB group on the RAN task. The copying task distinguished the DG group from the C group. Findings particularly highlight the importance of phoneme awareness for word reading in English (but not Chinese), the potential need for fluency training for children with reading difficulties in both Chinese and English, and the important role that copying skills could have specifically in understanding impairment of literacy skills in Chinese (but not English).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 24%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Linguistics 11 12%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 28 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,533,009
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Dyslexia
#39
of 247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,013
of 264,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Dyslexia
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 264,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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