Singh N N, Singh J
Educational Research and Services Center, DeKalb, IL 60115.
Am J Ment Retard. 1988 Nov;93(3):312-9.
The comparative efficacy of overcorrection, phonic analysis, and no-intervention control condition in an alternating treatments design on the number of oral reading errors made by 3 children with moderate mental retardation was evaluated. During overcorrection each oral reading error resulted in the teacher providing the correct word and the child pointing to and saying the word correctly five times before rereading the sentence in which the error word occurred. During phonic analysis, the teacher directed the child to attend to various phonetic elements of the error word and to "sound out" the word. Results showed that the children made fewer errors under both training conditions when compared to the no-intervention control. Initially, the overcorrection procedure was more effective than phonic analysis in reducing the children's oral reading errors, but this changed with further training, and phonic analysis proved to be more effective with all children. These data suggest that both overcorrection and phonic analysis are effective in increasing oral reading proficiency but phonic analysis is more effective with extended training.
在交替治疗设计中，评估了过度矫正、语音分析和无干预对照条件对3名中度智力障碍儿童的口头阅读错误数量的比较效果。在过度矫正期间，每次口头阅读错误都会导致教师提供正确的单词，孩子在重读出现错误单词的句子之前，指着并正确说出该单词五次。在语音分析期间，教师指导孩子注意错误单词的各种语音元素并“拼读”该单词。结果表明，与无干预对照相比，在两种训练条件下孩子犯的错误都更少。最初，过度矫正程序在减少孩子的口头阅读错误方面比语音分析更有效，但随着进一步训练，这种情况发生了变化，事实证明语音分析对所有孩子都更有效。这些数据表明，过度矫正和语音分析在提高口头阅读熟练度方面都是有效的，但语音分析在长期训练中更有效。
