reading comprehension

Reading Comprehension and Working Memory in Learning-Disabled Readers: Is the Phonological Loop More Important Than the Executive System

 

This investigation explores the contribution of two working memory systems (the articulatory loop and the central executive) to the performance differences between learning-disabled (LD) and skilled readers. Performances of LD, chronological age (CA) matched, and reading level-matched children were compared on measures of phonological processing accuracy and speed (articulatory system), long-term memory (LTM) accuracy and speed, and executive processing. The results indicated that (a) LD readers were inferior on measures of articulatory, LTM, and executive processing; (b) LD readers were superior to RL readers on measures of executive processing, but were comparable to RL readers on measures of the articulatory and LTM system; (c) executive processing differences remained significant between LD and CA-matched children when measures of reading comprehension, articulatory processes, and LTM processes were partialed from the analysis; and (d) executive processing contributed significant variance to reading comprehension when measures of the articulatory and LTM systems were entered into a hierarchical regression model. In summary, LD readers experience constraints in the articulatory and LTM system, but constraints mediate only some of the influence of executive processing on reading comprehension. Further, LD readers suffer executive processing problems nonspecific to their reading comprehension problems.

Keywords

• working memory;
• reading comprehension;
• learning disabilities;
• processing speed;
• executive processing;
• phonological processing

The author is thankful for the critical comments by Carole Lee, Kathy Wilson, Jeffrey Bisanz, and two anonymous reviewers of this journal on an earlier version of the manuscript. The author is particularly thankful to Marilyn Ransby, Joy Alexander, Ginger Berninger, Marshall Raskin, Stan Arbach, and Kelly Brennon, who played a role in the development of tasks, testing participants, coding data for analysis, and providing administrative assistance and/or made critical suggestions related to the project. Partial support for this study came from Peloy Endowment Funds—UCR.