Zabell Claire, Everatt John
Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Dyslexia. 2002 Jul-Sep;8(3):160-77. doi: 10.1002/dys.223.
In order to assess the efficacy of phonological versus surface dyslexia subtyping within an adult dyslexic population, 45 adult dyslexics were assessed on the Castles and Coltheart (1993) irregular word and non-word reading tasks. Based on the performance of a matched group of 28 non-dyslexics, between 62 and 75% of the dyslexics were divided into phonological and surface subtypes. Phonological dyslexics were those individuals who presented evidence of relatively poor or inefficient non-word reading, whereas the surface dyslexics were those who indicated relative difficulties with irregular word reading. The proportions of dyslexics within each subtype varied according to the use of accuracy-based or latency-based procedures, but were consistent with previous findings with children. Subsequent comparisons between the groups on measures of phonological processing, lexical access and word knowledge/recognition indicated few differences between the two subtypes and, in particular, no differences on measures of phonological ability. The lack of observed differences on such measures casts doubt on the efficacy of this procedure for explaining individual differences amongst adult dyslexics and as a practical procedure for diagnosis and intervention.
为了评估在成年诵读困难人群中语音性诵读困难与表层诵读困难亚型分类的有效性，对45名成年诵读困难者进行了卡斯尔斯和科尔特哈特（1993年）的不规则单词和非单词阅读任务评估。根据一组28名非诵读困难者的表现，62%至75%的诵读困难者被分为语音性亚型和表层亚型。语音性诵读困难者是那些在非单词阅读方面表现相对较差或效率较低的个体，而表层诵读困难者是那些在不规则单词阅读方面存在相对困难的个体。每个亚型中诵读困难者的比例根据基于准确性或基于潜伏期的程序而有所不同，但与之前对儿童的研究结果一致。随后对两组在语音处理、词汇通达和单词知识/识别测量方面的比较表明，两种亚型之间几乎没有差异，特别是在语音能力测量方面没有差异。在这些测量上未观察到差异，这让人怀疑该程序在解释成年诵读困难者个体差异方面的有效性，以及作为诊断和干预的实用程序的有效性。
