标题：Contrasting group analysis of Brazilian students with dyslexia and good readers using the computerized reading and writing assessment battery “BALE”
摘要：The analysis of cognitive processes underpinning reading and writing skills may help to distinguish different reading ability profiles. The present study used a Brazilian reading and writing battery to compare performance of students with dyslexia with two individually matched control groups: one contrasting on reading competence but not age and the other group contrasting on age but not reading competence. Participants were 28 individuals with dyslexia (19 boys) with a mean age of 9.82 (SD ± 1.44) drawn from public and private schools. These were matched to: 1) an Age Control Group (AC) of 26 good readers with a mean age of 9.77 (SD ± 1.44) matched by age, sex, years of schooling and type of school. 2) Reading Control Group (RC) of 28 younger controls with a mean age of 7.82 (SD ± 1.06) matched by sex, type of school and reading level. All groups were tested on 4 tasks from the Brazilian Reading and Writing Assessment battery (“BALE”): Written Sentence Comprehension Test (WSCT); Spoken Sentence Comprehension Test (OSCT); Picture-Print Writing Test (PPWT 1.1-Writing); and the Reading Competence Test (RCT). These tasks evaluate reading and listening comprehension for sentences, spelling and reading isolated words and pseudowords (nonwords). The dyslexia group scored lower and took longer to complete tasks than the AC group. Compared with the RC group, there were no differences in total scores on reading or oral comprehension tasks. However, dyslexics presented slower reading speeds, longer completion times and lower scores on spelling tasks, even compared with younger controls. Analysis of types of errors on word and pseudoword reading items showed students with dyslexia scoring lower for pseudoword reading than the other two groups. This findings suggest that the dyslexics overall scores were similar to those of younger readers. However, specific phonological and visual decoding deficits showed that the two groups differ in terms of underpinning reading strategies.
