FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W295232908> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W295232908 startingPage "9" @default.
• W295232908 abstract "The research findings reviewed in this article suggest that the reason poor readers may not benefit from perceptual training programs may be that they already possess the very skills educators are attempting to develop, and do not need this training. The present study attempts to further clarify this issue by determining whether children who are achieving at various reading levels score differently on perceptual and perceptual-motor tasks. PERCEPTUAL AND PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR TEST SCORES ARE NOT A CLUE TO READING ACHIEVEMENT IN SECOND GRADERS Dr. Jean R. Harber DUBNOFF CENTER FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCA TlONAL THERAPY NORTHRIDGE, CALIFORNIA Recent studies have questioned the effectiveness of perceptual training programs in remediating reading difficulties (Cohen, 1969; Harrrnill, 1972; Larsen & Harrrnill, 1975; lVla.nn, 1970). Gupta, Ceci, and Slater (1978) present two possible explanations for the apparent failure of these programs. It could be that the programs have not effectively trained children in those perceptual-motor skills in which they are deficient. On the other hand, it could be that poor readers simply do not suffer from perceptual-motor handicaps and therefore do not need nor benefit from these types of training. There is recent empirical evidence which supports the second explanation. Larsen, Rogers, and Sowell (1976) and Harber (1979) compared the performance of normal and disabled learners on numerous perceptual and perceptual-motor tests and found that the two grouRs did not show educationally significant differences on these tests. Other researchers have also argued that factors other than perceptual difficulties may be responsible for poor reading performance (e.g., Vellutino, Steger, Moyer, Harding, & Niles, 1977; Wallace & Goldsmith 1977). Lakey and McNees (1975) and Lakey and Lefton (1976) studied good and poor readers' performance on visual matching tasks. They asked their subjects to select from a number of alternatives the individual letters, words, and strings of letters of varying lengths, or stings of squiggles which were identical to the stimulus items. They found that as the length of the strings increased, so did the difference between the performance of groups of poor and good readers. (Lakey & Lefton, 1976) Gupta et al (1978) hypothesized that the differences reported by Lakey and Lefton may be due to differences in cognitive, rather than perceptual, strategies. They suggested that good readers perform better than poor readers because they are able to use their verbal skills to facilitate performance on tasks frequently labeled as perceptual. In order to test their hypotheses, they conducted two studies. In the first study, they investigated the performance of groups of good and poor readers on a matching task which contained letter strings of variable length and on a matching task which contained abstract figures. Their findings showed no differences between good and poor readers on the abstract figures task, but significant differences between the two groups on the letter strings task. They interpreted these findings as indicative of subjects' use of nonperceptual (i.e., verbal) strategies to aid in the matching of letter strings. In the second study, they administered three matching tasks, one containing nonsense shapes; one, strings of consonants; and" @default.
• W295232908 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W295232908 creator A5066133898 @default.
• W295232908 date "1982-12-31" @default.
• W295232908 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W295232908 title "Perceptual and Perceptual-Motor Test Scores are Not a Clue to Reading Achievement in Second Graders" @default.
• W295232908 cites W1930547688 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2027822463 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2053882173 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2055566392 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2076214882 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2103488830 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2138800238 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2143131599 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2168862125 @default.
• W295232908 cites W2268532490 @default.
• W295232908 cites W282282661 @default.
• W295232908 hasPublicationYear "1982" @default.
• W295232908 type Work @default.
• W295232908 sameAs 295232908 @default.
• W295232908 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W295232908 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W295232908 hasAuthorship W295232908A5066133898 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C169976356 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C22033958 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W295232908 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C138496976 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C138885662 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C151730666 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C15744967 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C169760540 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C169976356 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C180747234 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C22033958 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C26760741 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C2777267654 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C41895202 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C554936623 @default.
• W295232908 hasConceptScore W295232908C86803240 @default.
• W295232908 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W295232908 hasLocation W2952329081 @default.
• W295232908 hasOpenAccess W295232908 @default.
• W295232908 hasPrimaryLocation W2952329081 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W152046446 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W1551014140 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W155445851 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W1979873418 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2015191862 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2099674647 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2108659504 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W212176643 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2252447464 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W252741144 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W253971526 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W271383602 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W277209935 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2929564557 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W2946896898 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W330472118 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W89074007 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W95949184 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W9812820 @default.
• W295232908 hasRelatedWork W308882832 @default.
• W295232908 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W295232908 isParatext "false" @default.
• W295232908 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W295232908 magId "295232908" @default.
• W295232908 workType "article" @default.