count pages in pdf without opening c# : Delete pages out of a pdf file Library SDK component asp.net .net windows mvc AP%201999,201-part345

AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
573
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Figure1.Numberoferrorsmadeoneachdaybythe11-year-oldsforserialrecallofeight-
wordlistsofrhymingandnonrhymingmaterials.
testedtwiceondifferentdays,andthescoresforthesetwosessionswerecom-
pared.
8-year-olds.
These childrenwere giventhephonemic awareness tasksinthe
samesessionasthescreeningprocedures, andtheserialrecalltaskwasgiven
inaseparatesession.
RESULTS
Reliability
Reliabilitycoefficientswerederivedforthephonemicawarenessmeasuresand
theserial recall measures forthe datacollectedfrom m the11-year-olds. Mean
scoresonthephonemedeletiontaskwere14.6fortheodditemsand14.3for
theevenitems.Scores onthepigLatintaskwere19.3fortheodditemsand
18.4fortheevenitems.TheSpearman–Brownformulaforestimatingreliability
from split-halves datawasused(e.g., Ferguson, 1981)andyieldedreliability
coefficientsof0.77forthephonemedeletionscoresand0.98forthepigLatin
scores.Figure1 showsmeanerrors s ontheserialrecalltaskforeachdayfor
rhymingandnonrhyminglistsseparately. Toestimatereliabilityfortheserial
recalltask,aPearsonproduct-momentcorrelationcoefficientwascomputedon
Delete pages out of a pdf file - software control dll:C# PDF Page Extract Library: copy, paste, cut PDF pages in C#.net, ASP.NET, MVC, Ajax, WinForms, WPF
Easy to Use C# Code to Extract PDF Pages, Copy Pages from One PDF File and Paste into Others
www.rasteredge.com
Delete pages out of a pdf file - software control dll:VB.NET PDF Page Extract Library: copy, paste, cut PDF pages in vb.net, ASP.NET, MVC, Ajax, WinForms, WPF
Detailed VB.NET Guide for Extracting Pages from Microsoft PDF Doc
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
574
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Table1.Meanerrors(outof80)acrossalllistpositionsfor
theadults,11-year-olds,and8-year-oldsbyrhymecondition
andmeandifferencescores
8-year-olds
Normal
Poor
Adults
11-year-olds
readers
readers
Rhyming(errors)
M
43.9
47.4
55.4
59.8
SD
(4.9)
(7.0)
(6.0)
(6.1)
Nonrhyming(errors)
M
27.8
37.8
47.8
52.4
SD
(6.6)
(8.9)
(10.1)
(6.0)
Differencescores
M
16.1
9.6
7.6
7.5
SD
(5.8)
(8.7)
(10.3)
(5.5)
themeannumberoferrorsforeachdayacrosspositionandrhymingcondition.
Theresultingreliabilitycoefficientwas0.75.Thus,allofthemeasuresmetthe
criterionofbeingsufficientlyreliablefortheearlystagesofpredictiveresearch
(Nunnally&Bernstein,1994).
Developmentaltrendsinserialrecall
Datafromthefirstdayoftestingforthe11-year-oldswereusedinsubsequent
analyses. Table1 1 displays s mean n errors s across list positions forrhyming g and
nonrhyming materials s separately y as s well as meandifference scores s (i.e., the
differenceintotalerrorsforrhymingandnonrhymingmaterials).Thislastscore
maybethoughtofasanoperationaldefinitionoftherhymingeffect.Datafor
theadults,11-year-olds,andnormal-reading8-year-oldsareshownincolumns
1, 2, and d 3, , respectively, andillustratedevelopmental l trends. . Figure2shows
themeannumberoferrorsateachlistpositionforthethreegroupsoflisteners.
FromTable1andFigure2itappearsthatthereisageneraldevelopmentim-
provementintheaccuracyofrecall,andspecificallythattheeffectofrhyming
increaseswithage.Thislastdevelopmentaltrendappearsduetoolderlisteners
showingamuchgreateradvantagethanyoungerlistenersforthenonrhyming
materials.
Atwo-wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasdoneonthetotalnumberof
errorsacrosslistpositions,withageasthebetween-subjectsfactorandrhyming
as the within-subjectsfactor. Thedecisionwas made toconduct theanalysis
thisway,summingacrosslistpositionsratherthanincludinglistasafactorin
theanalysis,becauseitsimplifiedtheanalysiswhilepreservingthevariablesof
interest.Aresponsewasconsideredwrongifitwasgivenintheincorrectorder,
andsothesesummedscorespreservedinformationabouttheordereffect.Pre-
liminaryanalysesshowedthatthedatawerebothnormallydistributedandho-
software control dll:VB.NET PDF delete text library: delete, remove text from PDF file
Delete text from PDF file in preview without adobe PDF reader component installed. Able to pull text out of selected PDF page or all PDF document in .NET
www.rasteredge.com
software control dll:C# PDF delete text Library: delete, remove text from PDF file in
Able to pull text out of selected PDF page or all PDF option, The search and delete match rules. -. pageCount, The count of pages that will be deleted a string.
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
575
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Figure2.Numberoferrorsmadebytheadults,11-year-olds,and normal-reading 8-year-
oldsforserialrecallofeight-wordlistsofrhymingandnonrhymingmaterials.
mogeneouswithregardtovariancesacrossgroups.Bothmaineffectsweresig-
nificant:forage,F(2,50)=30.90,p<.001;fortherhymingcondition,F(1,50)
=87.64,p<.001.Ofprimaryinterest,theAge·Rhymeinteractionwassignifi-
cant, F(2, 50)=4.77, p=.013, indicatingthatthemagnitude oftherhyming
effectvariedacrossage.
Next,one-wayANOVAs,withageasthefactor, wereconductedonscores
fortherhymingandnonrhyminglistsseparately.PairwisettestswithBonfer-
roni corrections were also done. . Results fortherhymingmaterials showeda
significantageeffect,F(2,50)=18.09,p<.001,andsignificantpairwisettests
foradultsversus8-year-olds(p<.001)andfor11-year-oldsversus8-year-olds
(p<.01).Thettestforadultsversus11-year-oldsdidnotreachstatisticalsignif-
software control dll:C# HTML5 PDF Viewer SDK to view PDF document online in C#.NET
VB.NET comment annotate PDF, VB.NET delete PDF pages, VB.NET can view PDF document in single page or continue pages. Support to zoom in and zoom out PDF page.
www.rasteredge.com
software control dll:VB.NET PDF- View PDF Online with VB.NET HTML5 PDF Viewer
Auto Fill-in Field Data. Field: Insert, Delete, Update Field. can view PDF document in single page or continue pages. Support to zoom in and zoom out PDF page.
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
576
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
icance. Resultsforthe nonrhymingmaterials showedasignificantage effect,
F(2,50)=24.19,p<.001.Allthreettestsweresignificantforthesematerials:
adults versus 8-year-olds (p<.001), , adults s versus 11-year-olds (p<.01), and
11-year-olds versus8-year-olds(p<.01). Consequently, itseemsfairtocon-
cludethattherewasageneraldecreaseinthenumberoferrorsmadeinserial
recallofthesematerials,bothrhymingandnonrhyming,withastrongereffect
forthenonrhymingmaterials.Thisconclusioniscomplementarywiththatfrom
thetwo-wayANOVA(i.e.,themagnitudeoftherhymingeffectchangedwith
age).
Normalversuspoorreaders
Phonemic awareness.
For the 8-year-olds s in n the normal-reading group, the
meannumberofitemscorrectonthephoneme deletiontaskwas 19.6(SD=
7.8). Forthe e children inthe poor-reading group, the mean numberofitems
correctwas9.5(SD=4.9). Thisgroupdifferencewas statisticallysignificant,
t(29)=3.88,p<.001.ForthepigLatintask,themeannumberofitemscorrect
forthenormal-readinggroupwas15.5(SD=11.3).Themeannumberofitems
correct forthe poor-readinggroup was 1.5 (SD=3.9). . This groupdifference
wasstatisticallysignificant,t(29)=3.97,p<.001.
Serialrecall.
ThelasttwocolumnsofTable1providemeanerrorscoresfor
the normal-reading and poor-reading 8-year-olds. Figure 3 3 shows the mean
numberoferrorsacrossparticipantsineachreadinggroupforeachlistposition
fornonrhymingandrhymingmaterials.Atwo-wayANOVAwasperformedon
the summed errorscores across listpositions, with readingabilityas thebe-
tween-subjectsfactorandrhymingconditionasthewithin-subjectsfactor.Only
the main effect ofrhyming condition was statistically significant, F(1, , 29)=
20.02,p<.001.Theeffectofreadingabilitydidnotquitereachstatisticalsignif-
icance,F(1,29)=3.84,p=.059.Ofmostinterest,theReadingAbility·Rhyme
interactionwasnotsignificant.
Correlations.
SeveralPearsonproduct-momentcorrelationcoefficients(r)were
computed to see ifeitherofthe phonemic awareness s measures orthe serial
recalldifferencescoreweresignificantlyrelatedtoreadingability,asmeasured
bytheWRAT-R,andtoseeiftheserialrecalldifferencescoreandthephonemic
awareness measures were related d to each other. Scores s for r both phonemic
awareness tasks s were e correlated with scores on the reading g subtest t of the
WRAT-R:forphonemedeletion(r=.71, p<.001), forpigLatin(r=.54, p=
.002).Thislattercorrelationmayhavebeenweakerthanthatforthephoneme
deletiontaskbecausesomanyofthepoorreadersweresimplyunabletodothe
pigLatintask.Thecorrelationcoefficientfortheserialrecalldifferencescores
andthescoresonthereadingsubtestoftheWRAT-Rwasnotsignificant.Al-
thoughtherewasscantevidencefromthegroupdatathatthe normal readers
wereusingaphonemiccodingstrategytoagreaterextentthanthepoorreaders
software control dll:C# WPF PDF Viewer SDK to view PDF document in C#.NET
Auto Fill-in Field Data. Field: Insert, Delete, Update Field. extract, copy, paste, C#.NET rotate PDF pages, C#.NET Abilities to zoom in and zoom out PDF page.
www.rasteredge.com
software control dll:VB.NET PDF replace text library: replace text in PDF content in vb
Able to pull text out of selected PDF page or all PDF document in VB.NET. VB.NET: Replace Text in PDF File. VB.NET: Replace Text in Consecutive PDF Pages.
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
577
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Figure3.Numberoferrors madeby thegood andpoorreaders forserial recallofeight-
wordlistsofrhymingandnonrhymingmaterials.
forstoringitemsinworkingmemory,itstillseemedworthwhiletoinvestigate
whetherphonemic awareness accountedfor any ofthe variancein the serial
recalldifferencescores.Tothisend,aPearsonproduct-momentcorrelationco-
efficientwascomputedbetweenscoresoneachofthephonemicawarenesstasks
andtheserialrecalldifferencescores.Ifphonemicawarenessaccountedforany
portionofthevarianceinserialrecallforlinguisticmaterials,thesecorrelations
shouldbesignificant.Neitheronewas.
DISCUSSION
Thisstudyshowedacleardevelopmentaltrendintheuseofphonemiccodes
forstoring linguistic items s in n working memory. . Childrenas oldas 11years
made significantly more errors s onthe e nonrhyming materials than the e adults
made,indicatingthattheywerenotcodingitemsinmemorywithaphonemic
codeas stronglyas the adultswere. Evidenceofphonemiccodingstrategies
wasevenweakerforthe8-year-olds.
Anotherfindingofthisstudywasanobserveddissociationbetweenphonemic
awarenessandphonemiccodingoflinguisticmaterialsinworkingmemory.The
normalreadersinthisstudydemonstratedsignificantlygreaterskillatmanipu-
latingthephonemicstructureofsyllablesthanthepoorreaders,indicatingthat
software control dll:VB.NET PDF - View PDF with WPF PDF Viewer for VB.NET
Auto Fill-in Field Data. Field: Insert, Delete, Update Field. extract, copy, paste, C#.NET rotate PDF pages, C#.NET Abilities to zoom in and zoom out PDF page.
www.rasteredge.com
software control dll:VB.NET PDF File & Page Process Library SDK for vb.net, ASP.NET
document is unnecessary, you may want to delete this page get a PDF document which is out of order on creating, loading, merge and splitting PDF pages and Files
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
578
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
theyhadaccesstothatstructure.Nonetheless, the results fortheserialrecall
taskforthenormalreadersshowednoevidencethataphonemiccodingstrategy
hadbeen used to agreaterextent by them m thanbythepoorreaders tostore
wordsinworkingmemory.Severalresultssupportthisconclusion.Thenormal
readersmadesomewhatfewererrorsoverallthanthepoorreaders(althoughthe
effectdidnotreachstatisticalsignificance),buttheyshowednomoreofarhym-
ingeffectthanthepoorreadersshowed:thedifferencesinthenumberoferrors
madebetweenthenormalandpoorreaderswereroughlyequalforbothrhyming
andnonrhyminglists.Ifobserveddifferencesbetweenthereadinggroupswere
attributabletodifferencesintheextenttowhichaphonemiccodewasusedto
storewordsinworkingmemory,thelargestgroupdifferencewouldhavebeen
observedfornonrhymingmaterials, aswasthecasefortheadultsandthe11-
year-olds:meannumberoferrors weresimilarforrhymingmaterials forthe
adultsandthe11-year-oldsbutsignificantlydifferentfornonrhymingmaterials.
Also,therelationbetweenphonemicawareness(asmeasuredbyboththepho-
nemedeletionandpigLatintasks)andtheserialrecalldifferencescorewasnot
statisticallysignificant.Thus,nogroupdifferencewasobservedintheextentto
whichphonologicalcodingstrategies wereused,norwas there arelationbe-
tweenphonemicawarenessandtheuseofphonologicalcodingstrategiesacross
therangeofreadingabilities.Itseemsthattheuseofaphonemiccodingstrategy
forstoringitemsinworkingmemorydoesnotfollowautomaticallyasaresult
ofdevelopingaccesstothe syllable-internal, phonemicstructureoflanguage.
Instead,itseemsthatlearningtostoreitemsinworkingmemoryusingaphone-
miccodetakesplaceovertimeanddevelopmentallytrailstheabilitytoretrieve
phonemicinformationfromthelinguisticsignal.
Care was takenin this study tominimize task requirements. . Nonetheless,
theseresultsshowedlittledisparitybetweentheperformanceofthenormaland
poorreadersontherecalltask.Therefore,theconclusioncouldbereachedthat
thepoorreaders’serialrecallimprovedinthisstudy,relativetothatofearlier
studiesshowingdifferences inserialrecallbetweennormalandpoorreaders,
suchthattheyperformedsimilarlytothenormalreaders.Whileminimizingtask
requirementsmayhaveaccountedforthedecreaseindisparitybetweenthenor-
mal-andpoor-reading8-year-oldstosomeextent, neithergroupperformedas
well as s the e 11-year-olds oradults. . Thus, it seems fairto suggest that some
additionalskillmustbeneededbesidesbeingabletoaccessphonemicstructure
inordertomakeuseofthatstructureinworkingmemory.
Atthesametime,theserialrecalltaskusedinthisexperimentmayhavebeen
too difficultgenerallyfor8-year-olds, , thus degrading g theperformanceofthe
normal-reading8-year-olds.Itwasnotuncommonfor8-year-olds, eventhose
withnormalreadingabilities,tomake10errorsonsomeitemsintheintermedi-
atelistpositionsintheserialrecalltask,assuggestedbythehighmeanerror
rates forthesepositionsseeninFigures1and2. Inaddition, someofthe8-
year-olds were e unable to obtain n any y correct answers on the pig Latin task.
Therefore,ourabilitytodetectsignificantgroupdifferencesandsignificantcor-
relationsmayhavebeenconstrained.Experiment2wasdesignedtoseeifthe
resultsofthisfirstexperimentwouldbereplicatedwhenthesepotentialprob-
lemswerecorrected.
software control dll:C# PDF Image Redact Library: redact selected PDF images in C#.net
Fill-in Field Data. Field: Insert, Delete, Update Field. extract, copy, paste, C#.NET rotate PDF pages, C#.NET NET control allows users to black out image in PDF
www.rasteredge.com
software control dll:C# PDF Text Extract Library: extract text content from PDF file in
Ability to extract highlighted text out of PDF document. How to C#: Extract Text Content from PDF File. C# example code for text extraction from all PDF pages.
www.rasteredge.com
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
579
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
EXPERIMENTII:SIX-ITEMLISTS
Asecondexperimentwasconductedasacheckonthepossibilitythatthefailure
to find the anticipated effects s in n Experiment 1 fornormal andpoor readers
wasduetowhatistraditionallytermedceilingandflooreffects.Specifically,a
significantReadingAbility·Rhymeinteractionwasexpectedfortheserialre-
calltaskbutwasnotfound.Inaddition,significantcorrelationswereexpected
bothbetweenthereadingscoresandtheserialrecalldifferencescoresandbe-
tweenthe phonemic awareness scores andtheserial recalldifference scores.
Noneofthoseexpectedcorrelationswasobserved.Inthissecondexperiment,
severalproceduralchangesweremade.First,theserialrecalltaskwasconducted
with six-itemlistsinhopesthatanyceilingeffectsforthe numbers s oferrors
wouldbeavoided.Also,all48itemswereusedonthepigLatintaskinhopes
thatflooreffectsforthenumbersofitemscorrectonthattaskwouldbeavoided.
Thissecondchangewouldnotbeexpectedtohavemucheffectonitsownfor
the8-year-oldswhosimplycouldnotdothepigLatintask:thosechildrendid
notgetfurther thanthefirst sixitems. . Nonetheless, it t seemeda worthwhile
attempttospreadoutscores on n the pigLatintask. . Finally, the agerangeof
childrenincludedinthecomparisonofgoodandpoorreaderswasincreasedto
include8-,9-,and10-year-olds.Inadditiontoimprovingthechancesthatmost
ofthechildrenwouldnotscoreneartheflooronthepigLatintask,thischange
meantthatthenumberofchildren participatingwouldbeincreased,thus s im-
provingthepossibilityoffindingsignificantgroupdifferencesandcorrelations,
iftheyactuallyexistinthegeneralpopulation.
METHOD
Participants
Childrenbetween8and10yearsofagewereenlistedforthissecondexperi-
ment.Onlyonechangewasmadetothecriteriaforparticipationfromthefirst
experiment.TheblockdesignoftheWISC-IIIwasusedtoscreenthechildren
fornonverbalabilitiesinsteadoftheCPM.Thischangewasmadebecausethe
meanscoresforthe8-year-oldsinthefirstexperimentwerehigherthanwould
beexpectedforarandomlyselectedgroupofchildren, ifthetestnormswere
appropriateforthesesamplesofchildren.Atotalof73childrenmetthecriteria
forparticipation. Of these, 57children fit the e description ofnormal readers
(standardscoresforthereadingsubtestoftheWRAT-Rof95orbetter)and16
children fitthe descriptionof poorreaders s (standard d scores s of85 5 orpoorer)
usedinthe firstexperiment. Mean ageofthe participants ineachgroupwas
9;3.MeanstandardscoresonthereadingsubtestoftheWRAT-Rwere108for
thenormalreaders(SD=7)and76forthepoorreaders(SD=9).Asinthefirst
experiment, these scoresmeantthatthe normal l readerswere readingroughly
halfayearaboveexpectationsfortheirchronologicalage,andthepoorreaders
werereadingroughlyayearandahalfbehindexpectationsfortheirchronologi-
calage. Unlikethefirstexperiment,though,slightdifferenceswerefoundbe-
tweenthenormal-andpoor-readinggroupsonthecriterionmeasuresofgeneral
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
580
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
andlanguageabilities.OntheblockdesignoftheWISC-III,themeanscorefor
normalreaderswas.33standarddeviationsabovethemean,whereasthemean
score forpoor readers was .33 standard deviations below the mean. . Within-
groupstandarddeviationswerethesameas inthegeneralpopulationforboth
groups.Thebetween-groupdifferencewasstatisticallysignificant,t(71)=2.26,
p=.03. Onthe PPVT-R, themeanstandardscoreforthenormalreaderswas
106(SD=13),andthemeanscoreforthepoorreaderswas93(SD=11).This
differencewasalsostatisticallysignificant, t(71)=3.65,p<.001. Thesegroup
differenceswerenotconsideredproblematicinthisexperiment,largelybecause
theywereactuallysmallinmagnitude:groupmeansforbothgroupswerevery
close to the population means. . Furthermore, , such h differences couldonly in-
crease theprobabilityoffindinggroupdifferencesontherecalltask,andthe
prediction in this experiment was that no such differences s would d be e found.
Specifically,theeffectsofinterestweretheReadingAbility·Rhymeinterac-
tion,thecorrelationbetweenserialrecalldifferencescoresandreadingscores,
andthe correlations between each ofthe phonemic awareness measures and
serialrecalldifferencescores.Failuretofindtheseeffectsstatisticallysignifi-
cant, even though h slight differences s in n general l and language e abilities exist,
wouldonlyprovideparticularlystrongsupportforthecontentionthattheeffects
donotexistinthegeneralpopulation.
Stimuliandprocedures
Withtwoexceptions,thestimuliandprocedureswerethesameasinExperiment
1.First,all48itemswereusedinthepigLatintask.Second,thelistsofwords
fortheserialrecalltaskconsistedofsixitemsinsteadofeight.Forthenonrhym-
ing lists, , the words teen and seedwere excluded; forthe rhyming lists, the
wordsPatandvatwereexcluded.Forthetraininglists,thelettersKandLwere
excludedfromthenonrhyminglists,andGandBwereexcludedfromtherhym-
inglists.
RESULTS
Phonemicawareness
Forthenormal-readinggroup, themeannumberofitemscorrectonthe pho-
nemedeletiontaskwas23.9(SD=6.3).Forchildreninthepoor-readinggroup,
the meannumberofitemscorrectwas13.4(SD=7.2).Thisgroupdifference
wasstatisticallysignificant, t(71)=5.71, p<.001. ForthepigLatintask, the
mean numberofitems s correctfor r the normal-readinggroupwas s 29.3 3 (SD=
14.1). The mean n number of items correct for the poor-reading group was
9.3(SD=12.3).Thisgroupdifferencewasstatisticallysignificant,t(71)=5.16,
p<.001.
Serialrecall
Table2showsmeanerrorscoresforthenormalandpoorreadersaswellasthe
meandifferencescores.AsinExperiment1, these scores are summedacross
list positions s but t provided separately for the e rhyming g and nonrhyming lists.
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
581
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Table2.Meanerrors(outof60)acrossalllistpositions
forthenormalandpoorreadersbyrhymeconditionand
meandifferencescores
Normalreaders
Poorreaders
Rhyming(errors)
M
30.3
34.8
SD
(7.8)
(5.0)
Nonrhyming(errors)
M
24.2
29.4
SD
(8.8)
(6.6)
Differencescores
M
6.1
5.3
SD
(7.4)
(6.0)
Figure 4showsthe meannumberoferrorsforeachlist position. Atwo-way
ANOVAwasperformedonthesummederrorscoresacrosslistpositions,with
reading ability as the between-subjects s factor r and rhyming condition n as s the
within-subjectsfactor.AsinExperiment1,themaineffectofrhymingcondition
wasstatisticallysignificant,F(1,71)=32.53,p<.001. Thistime,theeffectof
readingabilitywasclearlysignificant, F(1, 71)=5.99,p=.017. Again, how-
ever,theReadingAbility·Rhymeinteractionwasnotsignificant.
Correlations
ThesamePearsonproduct-momentcorrelationcoefficientswerecomputedon
thesedataasonthoseofExperiment1,withthesameresults.Thecorrelations
betweenscores on n each phonemicawarenesstaskwithscores s onthe reading
subtestoftheWRAT-Rwerestatisticallysignificant:forphonemedeletion(r=
.70,p<.001),forpigLatin(r=.57,p<.001).Thesecorrelationsarestrikingly
similartothosecomputedforthedatainExperiment1. Thus,evenwithmore
itemsonthepigLatintaskandawiderrangeofparticipantages,thecorrelation
betweenthisphonemicawarenesstaskandreadingabilitywasnotasgreatas
betweenphonemedeletionandreadingability.AsinExperiment1,thecorrela-
tion betweentheserialrecalldifferencescores s andthescores onthe reading
subtestoftheWRAT-Rwasnotsignificant.Finally,thecorrelationscomputed
betweenscoresoneachphonemicawarenessmeasureandtheserialrecalldiffer-
encescoreswerenotsignificant.
DISCUSSION
ThepurposeofthesecondexperimentwastocheckthefindingsfromExperi-
ment1toensurethatobservedeffectswerenotattributabletoprocedurallimita-
tions. Inspiteofthechangesinprocedures,identicaltrendswereobservedin
thesecondexperiment:thepoorreadersmadesomewhatmoreerrorsonserial
AppliedPsycholinguistics20:4
582
Nittrouer&Miller:Developmentofphonemiccodingstrategies
Figure4.Numberoferrorsmadebythegoodandpoorreadersforserialrecallofsix-word
listsofrhymingandnonrhymingmaterials.
recallthanthegoodreaders,butthedifferencesbetweenthegroupsweresimilar
for the rhyming g and nonrhyming g materials. Consequently, no o evidence e was
found thatgood readers use e a a phonemic code to a greater extent than poor
readers. In addition, the e serial recall difference score was foundto correlate
neitherwithreadingabilitynorwithphonemicawareness.
GENERALDISCUSSION
Acentralquestionaddressedbythisstudywaswhetherchildrenwhoarecapa-
ble ofaccessingphonemicstructureinthespeech signalnecessarilyusethat
structureforstoringitemsinworkingmemorytoagreaterextentthanchildren
whohavedifficultyaccessingphonemicstructure.Inotherwords,doestheuse
ofphonemiccodingstrategiesinworkingmemoryemergeautomaticallywith
theabilitytoaccessthatphonemicstructure?Basedontheresultsoftwoexperi-
ments, the answerto o thisquestionisapparently“no.” Young normal readers
showednoevidenceofusingphonemiccodingstrategiesforstoringitems in
workingmemorytoagreaterextentthanyoungpoorreaders.First,nodiffer-
enceswerefoundbetweenthereadinggroupsinthemagnitudeoftherhyming
effect. Second, norelationwasfoundbetweenthe children’s readingabilities
andtheextenttowhichtheyusedaphonemiccodeforstoringitemsinworking
memory.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested