Individual differences in RAN and reading: A response timing analysis.

By Paula J. Clarke, Charles Hulme, M. Snowling. 2005

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/523fa684f95397cede4278b71caed2b0d79e59dc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

A Meta-Analytic Review of Naming-Speed Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia (2019, background): “It is, therefore, unlikely that the phonological component of RAN performance (Clarke et al., 2005; Pennington et al., 2001; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Wagner et al., 1993; Wolf & Bowers, 1999) and, in particular, the phonological problems that feature dyslexia are associated with the encoding and ret”
Rapid Automatized Naming and Reading Performance: A Meta-Analysis. (2014, methodology): “…larger number of different token items than that used in the classical RAN paradigm (five token items for each subtest in the classical RAN paradigm; six in Georgiou, Parrila, Kirby, Stephenson, 2008; 20 in Cobbold, Passenger, & Terrel, 2003; and 10 or 25 for letter naming in Clarke et al., 2005).”
Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. (2012, result): “Several studies have found that articulation time itself is not strongly associated with reading in the same manner as are overall RAN scores (Clarke et al. 2005, Cutting & Denckla 2001, Georgiou et al. 2006, Neuhaus et al. 2001, Obregon 1994).”
Rapid naming speed and Chinese character recognition (2008, background): “The studies show that (1) RAN tasks that require participants to name continuously presented and highly familiar stimuli account for independent variance in word reading and reading comprehension after controlling for various phonological processing measures (e.g., Bowers & Newby-Clarke, 2002; Clar”
Longitudinal predictors of reading and spelling across languages varying in orthographic consistency (2012, background): “relationship. It is the number of accessed stimuli that may impact the RAN-reading relationship, such that higher correlations may be observed between RAN and reading when the RAN task requires the child to access 25 letters repeated twice ( Clarke, Hulme, & Snowling, 2005 ) than when accessing 5 le”