Spoken Word Learning Differences Among Children With Dyslexia, Concomitant Dyslexia and Developmental Language Disorder, and Typical Development.

Purpose The purpose of our study was to test the hypotheses (a) that children with dyslexia have spoken word learning deficits primarily related to phonology and (b) that children with dyslexia and concomitant developmental language disorder (DLD) have word learning deficits related to both phonology and semantic processing when compared to peers with typical development (TD). Method Second-graders with dyslexia (n = 82), concomitant dyslexia and DLD (dyslexia + DLD; n = 40), and TD (n = 167) learned names and semantic features for cartoon monsters in 5 carefully controlled word learning tasks that varied phonological and semantic demands. The computer-based tasks were played in 6 different word learning games. We analyzed results using Bayesian statistics. Results In general, the dyslexia + DLD group showed lower accuracy on tasks compared to the dyslexia and TD groups. As predicted, word learning tasks that taxed phonology revealed deficits in the dyslexia group, although there were some exceptions related to visual complexity. Word learning deficits in the dyslexia + DLD group were present in tasks that taxed phonology, semantic processing, or both. Conclusions The dyslexia + DLD group demonstrated word learning deficits across the range of word learning tasks that tapped phonology and semantic processing, whereas the dyslexia group primarily struggled with the phonological aspects of word learning. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9807929.

The impact of multisensory instruction on learning letter names and sounds, word reading, and spelling.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the use of simultaneous multisensory structured language instruction promoted better letter name and sound production, word reading, and word spelling for second grade children with typical development (N = 6) or with dyslexia (N = 5) than structured language instruction alone. The use of non-English graphemes (letters) to represent two pretend languages was used to control for children's lexical knowledge. A multiple baseline, multiple probe across subjects single-case design, with an embedded alternating treatments design, was used to compare the efficacy of multisensory and structured language interventions. Both interventions provided explicit systematic phonics instruction; however, the multisensory intervention also utilized simultaneous engagement of at least two sensory modalities (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile). Participant's graphed data was visually analyzed, and individual Tau-U and weighted Tau-U effect sizes were calculated for the outcome variables of letter name production, letter sound production, word reading, and word spelling. The multisensory intervention did not provide an advantage over the structured intervention for participants with typical development or dyslexia. However, both interventions had an overall treatment effect for participants with typical development and dyslexia, although intervention effects varied by outcome variable.