This present study focuses on classifying developmental dyslexia by combining two famous models, the dual-route model and the triangle model of Chinese reading, re-examining validity of the subtypes, and observing the error types of word recognition for each subtype. Sixty-sixth graders with dyslexia in Chinese and 45 sixth graders who were matched by age and IQ with the dyslexic group were involved in the present study. Twelve (20%) sixth graders from the dyslexic group were classified as having phonological dyslexia, 11 (18.3%) were classified as surface dyslexia, 12 (20%) were classified as deep dyslexia, and five (8.3%) of them were classified as displaying more than one kind of deficit. Besides, still more than half (31; 51.7%) of the dyslexic group did not belong to any subtypes here. These subtypes had a good validity based on comparison of their phonological awareness, orthography, and semantics. Finally, for their error types of word recognition, both children with multiple-deficit dyslexia and children with non-subtype dyslexia showed a proportional pattern of six kinds of errors. Children with phonological dyslexia showed more phonetic errors and analogy errors, children with surface dyslexia showed more visual errors and analogy errors, and children with deep dyslexia showed more semantic errors and selective errors.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#22,209,469
of 31,978,644 outputs
Outputs from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#1,614
of 2,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,587
of 259,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#41
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,978,644 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 259,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
