Table 2.
Summary of group comparisons in studies investigating NWR performance in children with separate or co-occurring dyslexia and developmental language disorder
| Baird, Slonims, Simonoff, & Dworzynski (2011) | Bishop, McDonald, Bird, & Hayiou-Thomas (2009) | Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer (2005) | Fraser, Goswami, & Conti-Ramsden (2010) | McArthur & Castles (2013) | Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely (2013) | Rispens & Baker (2012) | Rispens & Parigger (2010) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TD vs. Dyslexia-only |
N/A | Age 4 & 6: Not analyzed Age 9: d = 0.52, p < 0.05 |
p < 0.001 | p < 0.05 | A1- A4: N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N/A |
| 2 | TD vs. SLI-only | Not analyzed | Age 4 & 6: Not analyzed Age 9: N.S. |
p < 0.01 | p < 0.05 | Not analyzed | p ≤ 0.05 | N.S. | N.S. |
| 3 | TD vs. SLI+dyslexia | Not analyzed | Age 4 & 6: Not analyzed Age 9: d = 1.16, p < 0.05 |
p < 0.001 | p < 0.05 | A1-A4: d = 1.13–2.66, p < 0.05 |
p ≤ 0.05 | Chronological Age (CA) TD p < 0.01 Language Age (LA) TD p < 0.01 |
p = 0.013 |
| 4 | Dyslexia-only vs. SLI+dyslexia | N/A | Age 4 & 6: Not analyzed Age 9: d = 0.65, p < 0.05 |
N.S. | N.S. | A1, A2, A4: d = 0.59–1.37, p < 0.05 A3: N.S. |
p ≤ 0.05 | p < 0.01 | N/A |
| 5 | SLI-only vs. SLI+dyslexia | Moderate p = 0.007 Severe p = 0.004 |
Age 4 & 6: N.S. Age 9: d = 0.88, p < 0.05 |
p < 0.001 | p < 0.05 | Not analyzed | p ≤ 0.05 | p < 0.05 | p = 0.04 |
| 6 | SLI-only vs. Dyslexia-only | N/A | Age 4 & 6: Not analyzed Age 9: N.S. | p < 0.001 | N.S. | Not analyzed | N.S. | N.S. | N/A |
Note. Numbered rows refer to the group comparisons summarized on p. 7 of the manuscript. Refer to Table 1 for the methodological details of the reported studies. The literature reviewed did not always include or analyze the same groups and information. The following are phrases and their definitions: a) “N/A” = Not applicable as the study did not include the group; b) “Not analyzed” = The group was included in the sample but not in reported statistical analyses; and c) “N.S.” = The group differences did not reach statistical significance. In the McArthur & Castles (2013) study, there were four analyses completed with differing group classifications: A1) receptive-expressive language + letter-sound reading, A2) receptive-expressive language + whole-word reading, A3) receptive language + letter-sound reading, and A4) receptive language + whole-word reading.