Manipulating basic characteristics of the Rapid Automatized Naming task in search for its most reliable connections to reading performance
Ключевые слова:Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN), literacy, reading, automaticity, attention, symbolic RAN stimuli, non-symbolic RAN stimuli, modified RAN subtasks, naming speed, bigram frequency, cognitive mechanisms of RAN performance
Introduction. Connections between Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) task performance and reading are well documented. Primary empirical studies and meta-analyses established and described associations between specific RAN subtasks and reading outcomes. The cognitive nature of these associations, however, remains largely underexplored. This study attempts to address the issue by explicitly manipulating some critical characteristics of the RAN task (stimuli types, combinations, and familiarity) and conditions of its administration (attention demand) in search for factors that affect RAN performance and underlie its connections to reading competencies.
Method. Ten modified RAN subtasks were created by manipulating type and familiarity of the stimuli, size of the stimuli source set, and demand to attention (cognitive controlled processing), involved in RAN performance. Measures of ballistic and efficiency-based automaticity, attention control, and reading rate were collected and analyzed using, ANOVA – with respect to performance on modified RAN subtasks, and correlational and multiple regression analyses – to address interrelations among major independent variables and their connections to reading rate.
Results. The study found differential sensitivity of the RAN performance to the explored experimental manipulations. Specifically, significant main effects on naming speed were observed for stimuli type, stimuli familiarity and attention demand. RAN performance on most of the modified subtasks (seven out of ten) was significantly correlated with the measure of attention control, whereas only one correlation between RAN and measures of automaticity was statistically significant. Findings of multiple regression analyses confirmed this pattern of results. Attention factor explained substantially larger portion of variance in performance on modified RAN than both indices of automaticity combined. Reading rate was significantly correlated with bigram-based RAN (supposedly reflecting practice), and its correlations with other modified subtasks were higher for the elevated attention demand conditions, in one case exceeding significance level.
Discussion. Understanding the cognitive nature of RAN is important for informing instructional practice of what reading skills might require special attention. This study explored specific conditions to which RAN performance may be especially sensitive. Modified RAN subtasks were markedly influenced by experimental manipulations, especially with regard to attention demand, indicating that attention, more than automaticity, could be a factor underlying naming speed as a predictor of reading.
Denckla M. B., & Cutting L. E. History and significance of rapid automatized naming. Ann Dyslexia. 1999, Vol. 49, pp. 29–42. DOI : 10.1007/s11881-999-0018-9
Savage R. Motor skills, automaticity and developmental dyslexia: A review of the research literature. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2004, Vol. 17, pp. 301–324. DOI: 10.1023/B:READ.0000017688.67137.80
Stringer R. W., Toplak M. E., Stanovich K. E. Differential relationships between RAN performance, behavioral ratings, and executive function measures: Searching for a double dissociation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2014, Vol. 17, pp. 891–914.
Bowers P. G., & Swanson L. B. Naming speed deficits in reading disability: Multiple measures of a singular process. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1991, Vol. 51, Issue 2, pp. 195–219. DOI: 10.1016/0022-0965(91)90032-N
Borokhovski E., Bernard R. M., Segalowitz N., Sokolovskaya A. Mapping connections between Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) task and reading: A meta-analysis of correlational data. Russian Psychological Journal, 2018, Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 46–76. DOI: 10.21702/rpj.2018.1.3
Hammill D. D. What we know about correlates of reading, Except Child, 2004, Vol. 71, Issue 4, pp. 453–469. DOI: 10.1177/001440290407000405
Swanson H. L., Trainin G., Necoechea D. M., Hammill D. D. Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 2003, Vol. 73, Issue 4, pp. 407–440. DOI: 10.3102/00346543073004407
Wolf M., Bowers P. G. The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1999, Vol. 91 (3), pp. 415–438.
Wolf M., Bowers P., Biddle K. Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 33, pp. 387–407. DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300409
Ackerman P. T., Holloway C. A., Youngdahl P. L., Dykman R. A. The doubledeficit theory of reading disability does not fit all. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 2001, Vol. 16, pp. 152–160. DOI:10.1111/0938-8982.00016
Stanovich K. Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press, 2000. 536 p.
Denckla M. B. Color-naming defects in dyslexic boys. Cortex. 1972, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 164–176.
Wolf M., Bowers P., Biddle K. Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2000, Vol. 33, pp. 387–407.
Borokhovski E., Segalowitz N., Lacroix G. L. On a test for predicting success in reading skill development anatomy of the RAN task. In: Proceedings of Cognitio Conference. Montreal: Universite du Quebec at Montreal (UQAM),
2004, pp. 18–32. http://cognitio.uqam.ca/2004
Meyer M. S., Wood F. B., Hart L. A., & Felton R. H. Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1998, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 106–117.
Pommerening K. Relative bigram frequencies in English, 2000. Available at: https://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/pommeren/Cryptology/Classic/8_Transpos/ Bigrams.html (Accessed 10 September 2018).
Neely J. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977, Vol. 106, pp. 226–254.
Favreau M., Segalowitz N. Automatic and controlled processes in the first and second language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory & Cognition, 1983, Vol. 11, pp. 565–574.
Borokhovski E. Explorations of the rapid automated naming (RAN) task: What should the “A” in RAN stand for? [Doctoral dissertation]. Concordia University, 2007. Available at: https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/975691/1/NR31121.pdf (Accessed 10 September 2018).
Segalowitz N., Segalowitz S. J. Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1993, Vol. 14 (3), pp. 369–385.
Segalowitz N., Poulsen C., Segalowitz S. RT coefficient of variation is differentially sensitive to executive control involvement in an attention switching task. Brain and Cognition, 1999, Vol. 38, pp. 255–258.
Reitan R., Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery: theory and clinical interpretation. Tucson: Neuropsychology Press, 1993. 912 p.
Spreen O., Strauss E. A compendium of neuropsychological tests. Administration, norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. 464 p.
Brown J. I., Fishco V. V., & Hanna G. Nelson-Denny reading test: Technical report forms G&H. Chicago: Riverside, 1993.
Ackerman P. L. Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 102 (1), pp. 3–27.
Cohen J. D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M. R., Provost J. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Journal Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1993, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pp. 257–271.
Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2014. 1056 p.
Savage R., Frederickson N., Goodwin R., Patni U., Smith N., & Tuersley L. Valuating current deficit theories of poor reading: Role of Phonological processing, naming speed, balance automaticity, rapid verbal perception and working memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2005, Vol. 101, Issue 2, pp. 345–361.
Segalowitz N. Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York, NY: Routledge, 2010. 240 p.