↓ Skip to main content

Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting Predict Reading Disability Symptoms in a Hybrid Model: Project KIDS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
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
Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting Predict Reading Disability Symptoms in a Hybrid Model: Project KIDS
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mia C. Daucourt, Christopher Schatschneider, Carol M. Connor, Stephanie Al Otaiba, Sara A. Hart

Abstract

Recent achievement research suggests that executive function (EF), a set of regulatory processes that control both thought and action necessary for goal-directed behavior, is related to typical and atypical reading performance. This project examines the relation of EF, as measured by its components, Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting, with a hybrid model of reading disability (RD). Our sample included 420 children who participated in a broader intervention project when they were in KG-third grade (age M = 6.63 years, SD = 1.04 years, range = 4.79-10.40 years). At the time their EF was assessed, using a parent-report Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), they had a mean age of 13.21 years (SD = 1.54 years; range = 10.47-16.63 years). The hybrid model of RD was operationalized as a composite consisting of four symptoms, and set so that any child could have any one, any two, any three, any four, or none of the symptoms included in the hybrid model. The four symptoms include low word reading achievement, unexpected low word reading achievement, poorer reading comprehension compared to listening comprehension, and dual-discrepancy response-to-intervention, requiring both low achievement and low growth in word reading. The results of our multilevel ordinal logistic regression analyses showed a significant relation between all three components of EF (Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting) and the hybrid model of RD, and that the strength of EF's predictive power for RD classification was the highest when RD was modeled as having at least one or more symptoms. Importantly, the chances of being classified as having RD increased as EF performance worsened and decreased as EF performance improved. The question of whether any one EF component would emerge as a superior predictor was also examined and results showed that Inhibition, Updating Working Memory, and Shifting were equally valuable as predictors of the hybrid model of RD. In total, all EF components were significant and equally effective predictors of RD when RD was operationalized using the hybrid model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 138 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 19%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 36%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Linguistics 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 41 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,665,440
of 24,932,492 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,270
of 33,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,895
of 337,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#133
of 582 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,932,492 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. 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 337,766 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 582 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.