ABSTRACT
These concerns are mitigated by a great deal of research indicating that deficits in core phonological skills are linked to reading failure for chil-
tified one group of dyslexic ssing (developmental phono-
logical dysle~a) and another with a deficit in o ~ h o g ~ p h i c processing (developmental surface dyslexia), more recent evidence from Manis et al. 1996 and §tano~ch, Siegel, and Gottardo (1997) indicates that only
exia qualifies as a distinct and stable type of dyslexia controls are employed. M o ~ i s et al. (1998) showed that
es of developmentally dyslexic readers can be identified itive skills, all of the subtypes are characterized by impairlogical processing skills. Furthermore, the phonological
cessing deficits of developmental dyslexics persist into adulthood, n when some literacy skills have been attained @ruck, 1992; Penning-
ton, van Orden, Smith, Green, & Haith, 1990), underlying the life-span n~cance of this diagnostic marker. Finally, there is recent evidence
netics su~esting a genetic linkage between phonologiadjacent markers on chromosome six ( G ~ ~ o r e ~ o et
de i ~ o ~ a t i o n about i n d i v i d ~ ~ d ~ e r e n c e s i dys-'S response to remediation~beyond that which might be he child's level of reading abili~/disabili~ at diagnosis. It is
gical processing variables differ in their predictive lopment (i.e., there may be a development^ window levels of performance on the tasks that index these
be effective (i.e., there may 1 level effect). Finally, the relative success of these vari-
teraction between the spem and the profile of stren ths and
processing skills (see
3 LOVET" M D BARRON
dren following the DS program only, whereas rate-disabled children demonstrated word ident~cation gains followi both the DS and the OWLS
Lovett, hnsby, Hardwick, Johns, and Don~dson (1989 described an intervention study in which 178 disabled readers, with va spec~city of reading deficit, were randomly assigned to
S. This extended sample included the 112 subjects . (1988) study. Forty hours of remedi
S yielded ~provement on selected tests sign~cant
improved in their ident~cation of both nd demonstrated gains on two of three
that observed following the CSS control treatment. DS instructed children
word ident~cation measures. OWLS instructed children were improved on e x p e r i ~ e n t ~ measures of text reading and oral language skill, but the effects did not generalize to standardized measures in the same skill domain.
