Relations Among Verbal Working Memory, Listening

University of Rhode Island
[email protected]
Open Access Dissertations 1992
Relations Among Verbal Working Memory, Listening Comprehension, and Reading Skills
Joanna S. Futransky University of Rhode Island
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss Recommended Citation Futransky, Joanna S., "Relations Among Verbal Working Memory, Listening Comprehension, and Reading Skills" (1992). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 942. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/oa_diss/942 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by [email protected] It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of [email protected] For more information, please contact [email protected]

RELATIONS AMONGVERBALWORKINGMEMORY, LISTENING COMPREHENSION,AND READING SKILLS BY JOANNAS. FUTRANSKY
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTEDIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREEOF DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY IN PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF RHODEISLAND
1992

ABSTRACT

Previous research suggests that verbal working memory

deficits

contribute

to problems experienced

in reading and

in listening

comprehension.

The primary purpose of the

present study was to explore the role of verbal working

memory in listening

comprehension

for fifth-grade

students.

Additionally,

the present research investigated

the

association

between working memory and the two components of

reading: decoding and comprehension.

A third goal of the

study was to investigate

the power of listening

comprehension,

decoding ability~

memory skills,

and IQ to

predict reading comprehension.

Data from 136 fifth-grade

students with average to

above average cognitive ability was analyzed for the study.

Each student completed three verbal working memory tasks,

two listening

comprehension measures, one decoding test, and

one reading comprehension

test.

Two listening

comprehension

measures were used to test the hypothesis that listening

measures differing

in memory requirements

(recall vs.

recognition)

would produce divergent results.

Students were

divided into low, middle, and high memory groups based upon

their scores on the working memory tasks.

Results of the two listening

comprehension measures

proposed that the memory demands affected comprehension

accuracy.

Significant

memory group differences

were

observed on the measure necessitating

the recall of specific

factual information

but not on the task requiring

the

recognition

of ideas.

Significant

memory group differences

were observed on

both the decoding and reading comprehension

measures.

Interestingly,

listening

comprehension

scores coupled with

working memory scores emerged as the dyad that accounted for

the greatest

proportion

of variance in reading

comprehension.

The results called attention

to the need to expand

educational

accommodations used with students with memory ·

problems.

Instructional

accommodations,

as well as direct

instruction

in metacognitive

strategies,

were recommended as

helpful curriculum modifications.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Heartfelt appreciation

is due to the many people who

provided me with hours of expertise and support: to my major

professor, Dr . Susan Brady, whose unending patience, warmth,

humor, and encouragement, as well as professional

excellence,

guided me through the complex journey of this

project; to Dr. Jerry Cohen, for his statistical

expertise;

and to Drs. Janet Kulberg and Barbara Culatta, for their

valuable input and contributions

of time. Special thanks go

to Tara Cassidy and Joann Burns, my research assistants

who

provided invaluable help with data collection .

This project could not have succeeded without the

support of public school personnel willing to allow me to

work with their students . I extend much gratitude to

Superintendent

Raymond Spear of the Coventry School

Department, Principal Robert Bates of the Narragansett

Pier

School, Principal Paul Johnson of the West Kingston

Elementary School, and the thirteen talented teachers who

cheerfully worked with me for six months.

Finally, I send immeasurable bounties of love and

appreciation

to my special husband and our family, to my

parents and sister, to my great uncle and aunt, and to my

friends for being my unconditional

champions.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW . ..................

·. . . . . 1

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Listening comprehension and reading

performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The theoretical

role of verbal working

memory in reading and listening

comprehension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Verbal working memory and reading ability .... • 11

Evidence that good and poor readers differ

in listening comprehension: Relating reading

group differences to verbal working memory .. 16

Recall and recognition ........................

22

Present investigation .... ..•. .................

27

I I . METHOD . • . • • • • . . . . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • . . • • • • . . • • . 2 9

Subjects.....

. ................................

29

Selection criteria . .. .........

.. . . ..........

. . 29

Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Memory measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Decoding measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

Listening and reading comprehension measures .. 36

Experimental procedures .......................

39

III. RESULTS .................................

.. ........

41

Characteristics

of the total sample . . .........

42

Characteristics

of the three memory

groups for the full sample. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 43

Correlations

between variables ................

48

ANOVAs: listening comprehension . . . ...... . . . ... 50

ANOVAs : reading measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7

The effects of IQ. • • . . • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61

Predicting reading comprehension ..............

62

I V. DISCUSSION. . • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . 82

V

APPENDICES A. Familiar

Word Span Test....

..... . . ...........

. . 90

B. Pseudoword Repetition Test........

... ....... . .. 91

c. Sentence Span -Test.............................

92

D. Profiles in Listening and Reading (PILAR)......

95

E. Means, standard deviations,

and ranges in raw

scores (except where noted) for the sample

population (N=l36), for the dependent

measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

F. Means, standard deviations,

and ranges in raw

scores (except where noted) for the

subsample.(N=76),

for the dependent

measures .............

.. .......................

101

G. Correlation matrix of age, IQ, memory measures,

PILAR listening and reading comprehension tasks,

Spache listening comprehension, and decoding,

(N=76) .................

. ......................

103

H. ANCOVAto determine memory group differences

when the WISC-R Vocabulary and

subtests are used as covariates ...............

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY . ................

. ........................

. 105

vi

Table
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
8. 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Means, standard deviations,

and ranges

of age and IQ for the total experimental

sample and the subsample ..............

.

PAGE 42

Correlation

matrix for age, IQ, memory

measures, PILAR listening

and reading

comprehension tasks, and decoding,

N=136. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Means and standard deviations

for age

and IQ for each memory group, and analyses

of group differences

with follow-up Tukey

results................................

46

Means and standard deviations

for the working

memory tasks for each memory group, and

analyses of group differences

with follow-up

Tukey results,

N=136.~.................

47

Means and standard deviations

for three

memory groups on the three grade levels of

passage difficulty

of the PILAR listening _

comprehension task, N=136..............

51

Summary table for 3x3 ANOVAfor PILAR

listening

comprehension

scores by memory

group and levels of passage difficulty,

N=136..................................

51

Means and standard deviations

for the two

memory groups on the three grade levels of

passage difficulty

of the PILAR listening

comprehension tasks, N=60 • .............

53

Summary table for 2x3 ANOVAfor PILAR

listening

comprehension

scores by memory

group and levels of passage difficulty,

N=60...................................

54

Means and standard deviations

for two memory

groups on the three grade levels of passage

difficulty

of the Spache listening

comprehension task, N=60...............

56

vii

10. Summary table for 2x3 ANOVA for the Spache

Diagnostic Scales scores by memory group

and levels of passage d i fficulty,

N=60 . ...... .. ... . .... . . . ..... ·. . . . . . . . . .

56

11.

Means, standard de v iations,

and ranges for

Word Attack subtest for each memory group,

and analyses of group differences

with

follow-up Tukey results,

N=136 . . . . .... .

58

12. Means and standard deviations

for three

groups on the three grade levels of passage

difficulty

of the PILAR reading comprehension

task, N=136 . .... .. .......

.. .... .. ......

59

13. Summary table for 3x3 ANOVA for PILAR reading

comprehension scores by memory group and

levels of passage difficulty,

N=136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

14. Hierarchical

multiple regressions

with reading

c omprehension as the dependent variable:

N=136 without Spache;

N=76 with Spache.... . . . ... . ..... . ......

65

viii

,

Figures 1.
2 •
3.
4 •

LIST OF FIGURES

Mean correct responses,

in raw scores,

for the low, middle, and high memory

groups on the PILAR listening

comprehension measures, N=l36 ..... . . .

Mean correct responses,

in raw scores,

for the low and high memory groups

on the PILAR listening

comprehension

measures, N=6 0 . .....................

.

Mean correct responses,

in raw scores,

for the low and high memory groups on

the Spache listening

comprehension

task, N=60..........

.. ........

. ......

Mean correct responses,

in raw scores,

for the low, middle, and high memory

groups on the PILAR reading

comprehension

test, N=136 ...........

.

PAGE 52 54 57 60

ix