American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.12 16-27 February 2003. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/049)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, L. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crowe, L. K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children With Language-Learning Disabilities

Linda K. Crowe 1
1 Kansas State University, Manhattan

lcrowe{at}ksu.edu.

Twelve school-age children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) participated in a study comparing the effects of two reading feedback strategies for improving their oral and written language performance. Children were matched for age, disability, gender, and general reading performance. Participants were assigned to one of three study groups, Treatment 1 (T1), Treatment 2 (T2), or Control (C). Children were pre- and posttested on standardized tests of reading and oral vocabulary. T1 and T2 participated in 6 weeks of reading intervention. T1 used traditional decoding-based feedback strategies, and T2 used meaning-based feedback strategies, termed Communicative Reading Strategies (CRS). Significant differences across groups were found for reading comprehension, oral reading, and expressive vocabulary measures. Pairwise comparisons indicated that T2 performed significantly better than T1 and C on reading comprehension at posttest. Though not reaching levels of significance, T2 made greater gains than T1 and C on oral reading and expressive vocabulary measures. Results are discussed with implications for using CRS (T2) with school-age poor readers.

Key Words: language-learning disabilities, communicative reading strategies, reading comprehension, reading accuracy, receptive and expressive vocabulary

Submitted on December 1, 2000
Accepted on January 8, 2002


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 LSHSSHome page
F. M. Cirrin and R. B. Gillam
Language Intervention Practices for School-Age Children With Spoken Language Disorders: A Systematic Review
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2008; 39(1): S110 - S137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
T. A. Kouri, C. A. Selle, and S. A. Riley
Comparison of Meaning and Graphophonemic Feedback Strategies for Guided Reading Instruction of Children With Language Delays
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, August 1, 2006; 15(3): 236 - 246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]