Journal of Learning Disabilities

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Studdert-Kennedy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Brady, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Studdert-Kennedy, M.
Right arrow Articles by Brady, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 33, No. 4, 317-321 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300403

Speech Perception Deficits in Poor Readers

A Reply to Denenberg's Critique

Michael Studdert-Kennedy

Maria Mody

Susan Brady

We reply to Denenberg's (1999) recent critique of our work (Mody, Studdert-Kennedy, & Brady, 1997). Denenberg mounted two main lines of criticism, one concerning characteristics of the population sampled for the experimental group, and the other a statistical critique, concerning (a) violation of parametric assumptions for use of the F distribution and (b) our supposed acceptance of the null hypothesis of no differences between experimental and control groups. We show that the first criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of the experimental hypothesis and that the second can be answered by both parametric and nonparametric comparisons across conditions within the experimental group, without reference to the control group. Thus, our original conclusion stands: The difficulty with rapid /ba/-/da/ discrimination that some children with reading impairment may experience does not stem from difficulty in discriminating the rapid spectral transitions at stop-vowel syllable onsets.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
R. S. Savage, N. Frederickson, R. Goodwin, U. Patni, N. Smith, and L. Tuersley
Relationships Among Rapid Digit Naming, Phonological Processing, Motor Automaticity, and Speech Perception in Poor, Average, and Good Readers and Spellers
J Learn Disabil, February 1, 2005; 38(1): 12 - 28.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
V. H. Denenberg
More Power to Them Statistically, That Is: A Commentary on Studdert-Kennedy, Mody, and Brady's Criticism of a Critique
J Learn Disabil, July 1, 2001; 34(4): 299 - 301.
[PDF]


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
M. Studdert-Kennedy, M. Mody, and S. Brady
A Response to Denenberg
J Learn Disabil, July 1, 2001; 34(4): 302 - 303.
[PDF]