Rapid serial naming: Developmental trajectory and relationship with the Bangor Dyslexia Test in Spanish students

RESEARCH ARTICLE Rapid serial naming: Developmental trajectory and relationship with the Bangor Dyslexia Test in Spanish students Paula Out on 1 | María José Ferraces 2 1 Department of Pedagogy and Didactics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain 2 Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology, and Methodology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain Correspondence Paula Out on, Faculty of Education Sciences, Rúa Prof. Vicente Fr aiz And on, s/n. Campus Vida, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Email: [email protected] This study aimed to analyse the developmental trajectory of the accuracy and speed of naming among dyslexics and developing readers from 1st to 6th grade of primary education. It examined how familiarity with the stimulus influences the performance of different naming tasks in both groups and evaluated the link between naming speed and the Bangor Dyslexia Test. With a descriptive and correlational design, eight naming tasks and the Bangor Dyslexia Test (Miles, 1982; Out on & Su arez, 2010) were administered to a sample of 198 dyslexics and 245 developing readers. The results showed that the dyslexics were slower and more inaccurate in all the naming tasks, compared with the developing readers of the same age. Greater difficulty was observed with the less familiar stimuli. It became evident that naming performance improved with age among both groups of subjects. Finally, a greater number of significant and positive correlations were found between the naming tasks and the Bangor Dyslexia Test in the dyslexic group; the strongest relationship was obtained by naming letters. KEYWORDS Bangor Dyslexia Test, development of rapid serial naming, dyslexia, primary education, serial naming, Spanish Received: 18 October 2018 Revised: 7 April 2021 Accepted: 20 April 2021 DOI: 10.1002/dys.1683 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2021 The Authors. Dyslexia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Dyslexia. 2021;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/dys 1 1|INTRODUCTION More than half a century ago, Geschwind and Fusillo (1966) suggested that reading difficulties could be related to a deficit in colour naming, observing that both difficulties shared brain circuits in the form of pure alexia without agraphia. Denckla and Rudel (1976a, 1976b) examined this hypothesis and found that dyslexics differed from typically developing readers and from children with learning problems in terms of serial naming speed, not only of colours, but also of known letters, numbers, and objects. The stimuli employed in these studies comprised of the prototype of the Rapid Automatised Naming (RAN) tests, which are used in most research studies to assess naming ability. These tests involve presenting familiar stimuli in a linear sequence, random repetition several times, and access to a single semantic category. However, variants of the same tests have also been used. Other forms include use of alternating stimuli of two or more series (Albuquerque & Simôes, 2010; Wolf, 1986) in a discrete format, in which stimuli are presented individually (Bowers & Swanson, 1991; Chiappe, Stringer, Siegel, & Stanovich, 2002; Georgiou, Parrila, Cui, & Papadopoulos, 2013), or with all the different elements. In the latter, it is assumed that the requirements for phonological coding are greater (Di Filippo, Zoccolotti, & Ziegler, 2008). The relationship between performance in rapid naming tasks and reading has been widely researched, and it has been proven to be correlated with different reading processes. Thus, it has been linked to the knowledge of the name and sound of the letters (Ferroni & Diuk, 2010), the accuracy and reading speed of words and pseudo-words (Altani, Protopapas, & Georgiou, 2018; Clarke, Hulme, & Snowling, 2005; Savage et al., 2018; Swanson, Trainin, Necoechea, & Hammill, 2003), reading fluency of texts (Georgiou, Papadopoulos, & Kaizer, 2014; van de Ven, Voeten, Steenbeek-Planting, & Verhoeven, 2017), and reading comprehension (Joshi & Aaron, 2000; Layes, Lalonde, & Rebaï, 2016; Tong, McBride, Shu, & Ho, 2018). Araújo, Reis, Petersson, and Faísca (2015) found a moderate to strong correlation between the naming tasks and reading of words, pseudo-words, texts, and reading comprehension in a recent meta-analysis study of reading of words and texts obtaining the highest coefficients. In addition, different studies suggest that serial naming has a superior effect on the prediction of reading performance compared to discrete naming (Altani et al., 2018; Altani, Protopapas, & Georgiou, 2017; Georgiou et al., 2013). Both tasks involve similar cognitive processes: sequential eye movements through the page (saccades and jumping to the next line), visual discrimination of the stimulus presented at fixation, integration of the visual information into the mental representation, phonological patterns of the stimulus, access and recovery of the phonological label, activation and integration of semantic information, and pronunciation of the stimulus name. Moreover, some authors argue that RAN is a microcosmic representation of reading (Norton & Wolf, 2012). However, there is currently no consensus on which of these processes are deficient in both tasks (Jones, Snowling, & Moll, 2016). Furthermore, the naming tasks provided a distinction between dyslexics and typically developing readers in languages with different degrees of orthographic regularity. This was seen in a wide set of cases from regular languages (e.g., German: Brandenburg et al., 2017; SpanishJiménez et al., 2009; Greek: Georgiou, Papadopoulos, Zarouna, & Parrila, 2012; Dutch: Bexkens, van den Wildenberg, & Tijms, 2015; Italian: Tobia & Marzocchi, 2014; Polish: _ Zesławska-Fale nczyk & Małyszczak, 2016) to more opaque languages (French: Ziegler, Castel, Pech-Georgel, & George, 2008; English: Raschle, Chang, & Gaab, 2011; Portuguese: Araújo et al., 2011) and non-alphabetic languages (Chinese: Tong, McBride, Lo, & Shu, 2017; Japanese: Wakamiya et al., 2011). Following the same line, Landerl et al. (2013) found, in a study involving 1,138 typically developing readers and 1,114 dyslexics from eight European countries, that phonemic awareness and RAN are strong predictors of dyslexia in the six languages spoken by the participants (Finnish, Hungarian, German, Dutch, French, and English). The findings of these and other studies in different languages suggest that rapid naming is an early predictor of dyslexia and could be used for detection and intervention before reading difficulties arise. Despite this predictive character of dyslexia and its relationship with different reading processes, there are still many unresolved issues regarding rapid naming, including its developmental trajectory, the type of stimuli used in these tasks, and its relationship with other tests to detect dyslexia, among others. 2OUTÓN AND FERRACES With respect to its developmental trajectory, several studies conducted so far include small samples of two or three age groups or different school years, but few include a wide range of ages. The latter include: in Chinese, the study conducted by Ding, Richman, Yang, and Guo (2010), who verified the abilities to name colours, objects, and numbers, and the processes of immediate memory in a sample of 243 schoolchildren from 1st to 5th grade; in Spanish, the work conducted by Jiménez, Rodríguez, Guzm an, and García (2010), who assessed the speed of naming letters, numbers, colours, and drawings, along with other cognitive processes, in a sample of 1,050 Primary Education students from the 2nd to the 6th grade; in Greek, the study performed by Georgiou et al. (2014), who examined both the articulation times and pause times in naming digits and objects in 75 schoolchildren enrolled in 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 10th grade; in English, the research conducted by Wolf and Denckla (2005), and Wiig, Zureich, and Chan (2000), who assessed 1,461 subjects aged 5 to 18 years in tasks of naming objects, colours, numbers, and letters, and 2,450 subjects aged from 6 to 21 years in tasks of naming colours, geometric shapes, and a combination of both, respectively; and in English and Kannada, the study conducted by Siddaiah, Saldanha, Venkatesh, Ramachandra, and Padakannaya (2016), who administered naming tests of letters, digits, objects, and colours in both languages to 600 students enrolled in the 1st to 10th grade. However, the vast majority of these research studies did not include a comparison of the developmental trajectory between dyslexics and typically developing readers, nor was there an agreement on the age at which the maximum speed for different stimuli is reached. For instance, Wolf and Denckla (2005) observed the highest speed in colour naming at 14 years of age, whereas in the study conducted by Siddaiah et al. (2016), it was as high as 16 years old. In relation to the type of stimulus, most studies have examined naming speed using the same tasks as Denckla and Rudel (1976a, 1976b), and few have examined the developmental trajectory of the accuracy and speed of naming with stimuli of other semantic categories. Among the latter, geometric shapes should be mentioned (Albuquerque & Simôes, 2010; Wiig et al., 2000), along with animals (Catts, Gillispie, Leonard, Kail, & Miller, 2002) or Chinese characters (Liao & Parrila, 2008). The degree of familiarity of the labels and whether they lead to differences between dyslexics and typically developing readers have not been considered. Another unknown aspect of the naming tests is their relationship with other instruments for the detection and diagnosis of dyslexia, which assesses cognitive-behavioural manifestations other than written language. These include working memory (Aguilar-Vafaie, Safarpour, Khosrojavid, & Afruz, 2012; Cowan et al., 2017; Weng, Li, & Li, 2016) or auditory discrimination (Banai & Ahissar, 2018; Bogliotti, Serniclaes, Messaoud-Galusi, & Sprenger- Charolles, 2008; Witton, Swoboda, Shapiro, & Talcott, 2019), among others. According to Norton and Wolf (2012), dyslexia is a heterogeneous disorder, and despite more than 100 years of research on this disorder, there is neither an explanation for all its symptoms nor an understanding of how they relate to each other. Given our previous studies on the Bangor Dyslexia Test (BDT) (Out on & Su arez, 2010), we made the most of the research by studying the relationships that rapid naming may have, with the subtests making up the Bangor test. The aim was to examine whether we could find any interesting relationships, since Miles (1993) believed, a posteriori, that its diagnostic power consists of a phonological component in all the tasks of the test. More specifically, the belief relates to the difficulty of finding the right word, and this was the component at which dyslexics failed. However, this relationship has not yet been studied. 2|METHODOLOGY 2.1 |Aims of the study The main objectives of this study were to analyse the developmental trajectory of the accuracy and speed of naming by dyslexics and typically developing readers from the 1st to 6th grade of primary education. We focused on examining how familiarity with the stimulus influences performance of different naming tasks in both groups of subjects and evaluating how naming speed is related to the BDT. OUTÓN AND FERRACES 3 2.2 |Sample The sample consisted of 443 primary education students (198 dyslexics and 245 typically developing readers), aged between 6 and 12 years, belonging to different schools located in the autonomous communities of Galicia and Catalonia (271 from Galicia and 172 from Catalonia). Students with dyslexia were recruited through guidance departments and psychopedagogical centres. The inclusion criteria for this group were expert opinions or assessments in which the diagnosis of dyslexia was explicit; IQ score ≥85 in order to exclude intellectual disability; reader performance below the average level of the class; absence of uncorrected neurological, psychic, or sensory disorders; and lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction. Only two of these criteria—intelligence and reading delay—were directly verified for 45 dyslexics; for the others, the anamnesis information was used. The typically developing readers were selected from the same schools as the dyslexic students and classified by their teachers as students without reading and writing difficulties, and with average intellectual capacity. Table 1 presents the distribution of the samples. To study how naming speed is related to the BDT, a subsample of 121 2nd to 6th grade primary education students (45 dyslexics and 76 typically developing readers) were considered from the original sample (N=443). All the tasks in the test were administered to them, except for the ‘multiplication table’item, which was only administered to 31 dyslexics and 63 typically developing readers, since some of the 7- or 8-year-old children had not yet had the opportunity to learn multiplication. Table 2 presents the characteristics of this subsample. 2.3 |Instruments Assessment of verbal labelling (Out on, 2003) is based on the RAN test developed by Denckla and Rudel (1974). Its purpose is to evaluate the naming accuracy and speed in eight different tasks: series of fruits, series of animals, series of TABLE 1 Mean and standard deviations of age according to the group and grade for the naming tasks Grade Dyslexics Typical readers Age Age N M SD N M SD 1st 14 6.4 0.05 25 6.7 0.4 2nd 30 7.3 0.5 44 7.7 0.6 3rd 46 8.4 0.8 28 8.2 0.8 4th 44 9.1 0.4 66 9.5 0.6 5th 45 10.2 0.6 42 10.5 0.6 6th 19 11.4 0.5 40 11.4 0.5 Total 198 8.9 1.5 245 9.2 1.6 TABLE 2 Mean and standard deviations of age according to the group and grade for the Bangor Dyslexia Test Grade Dyslexics Typical readers Age Age N M SD N M SD 2nd 12 7.1 0.6 18 7.4 0.5 3rd 12 8.6 0.7 11 8.1 0.0 4th 10 9.2 0.5 24 9.3 0.4 5th 7 9.7 0.8 11 10.1 0.0 6th 4 11.3 0.5 12 11.2 0.3 Total 45 8.7 1.4 76 9.1 1.3 4OUTÓN AND FERRACES colours, series of numbers, series of musical instruments, series of objects of different categories -miscellaneous–series of spatial notions, and series of letters. The examiner presents each of the series in a DIN A-4 sheet, with a 5-column and 9-row layout, in which five stimuli are distributed, repeated nine times randomly, and make up a series of 45 stimuli. Specifically, the following were presented as stimuli: five fruits known to children (apple, orange, banana, lemon, and pear), five animals (dog, cat, pig, rooster, and mouse), five basic colours (black, green, blue, red, and yellow), five onefigure numbers (one, five, six, seven, and nine), five musical instruments (piano, guitar, drum, trumpet, and tambourine), five familiar objects of different semantic fields (turtle, umbrella, flashlight, wheelbarrow, and sledge), five spatial notions (centre, top, left, right, and bottom), and five letters (a, o, b, d, and m). According to the development of vocabulary in children aged between 6 and 13 years old (Justicia, 1995), the total frequency of use of the words in each series is as follows: fruits, 824; animals, 4,040; colours, 2,262; numbers, 1,400; musical instruments, 151; miscellaneous, 204; spatial notions, 295; and letters, 12,919. The series of letters was only administered to a small group of the sample (51 dyslexics and 62 typically developing readers), since it was incorporated into the design of the test at a later stage. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV, WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2010). This is a standardised scale of individual application aimed at assessing the cognitive abilities of children aged between 6 years and 0 months and 16 years and 11 months old. Reading the words of the Test of Analysis of Reading and Writing (TALE) (Toro & Cervera, 1990). It consists of a list of 50 words, of which six are invented words. In this study, only the number of errors and the time spent reading were considered. Bangor Dyslexia Test (BDT) (Miles, 1982; Out on & Su arez, 2010). This is a dyslexia screening test that assesses the difficulties associated with this disorder in addition to reading and writing. It consists of 10 subtests: recognition of the right and left sides in different parts of the body, repetition of multi-syllabic words, mentally performing subtraction operations, reciting the multiplication table and the months of the year forward and backward, repetition of digits in direct and inverse order, evidence about the confusion of letters ‘b’and ‘d’, and report of family incidence on learning difficulties. 2.4 |Procedure The assessment of verbal labelling was administered by one of the authors and four examiners, two Catalans, and two Galicians, previously trained in the management of this test. The students were evaluated individually in a quiet room at their school or at the psychopedagogical centre they attended. The procedure for each series was identical. First, the participants were instructed in the task with two training sheets: a series of means of transport and a series of school materials. Next, the assessment began, where participants had to name, as quickly as possible, the different stimuli of each row from left to right and from top to bottom. To avoid difficulties during the activity, the participants were asked to use their index finger while naming the different stimuli. The participants had to use the correct label for each stimulus, although some synonyms were also valid. If at some point the participants forgot the name of the stimulus, they were instructed to say ‘skip’or ‘I don't know’. The examiner recorded the errors made, their corrections, and the execution time in seconds for each series. The WISC-IV, TALE, and Bangor tests were administered by one of the authors according to their respective rules. 3|RESULTS Two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) 2 6 were conducted to check whether there were significant differences between the groups (dyslexics and typically developing readers) and the school year (from 1st to 6th grade of primary education) in the different naming tasks, except for letters: (a) analysis of the errors for each of the OUTÓN AND FERRACES 5 naming tasks, and (b) analysis of the overall execution time in each of them. For the naming of letters, two ANOVA groups per grade (from 1st to 5th) were performed for the ‘errors’and ‘time’variables. Subsequently, the test for comparisons between groups with Bonferroni's correction was applied to analyse groups with differences. The analysis of the number of errors yielded significant main effects due to the group, as shown in Table 3. The dyslexics committed significantly more errors than the typically developing readers in all the measured variables, with the naming of musical instruments and miscellaneous being the most difficult tasks for both groups of participants. According to their grades, statistically significant differences were also found in the mean scores of the ETV, except in letters, with the older student groups obtaining better performance in the test, compared with the younger student groups. The most difficult task for all students, regardless of their grades, was naming musical instruments. The exception was the 1st grade students, for whom, the most difficult task was naming spatial notions. The variable that caused the fewest errors was ‘numbers’. The group grade interaction was equally significant in all measured variables, except in ‘colours’and ‘miscellaneous’. The Bonferroni's correction confirmed significant differences in the dyslexic group among the different grades of the students: 1st vs. 2nd grade in numbers (p< .001); 1st vs. 3rd grade in numbers (p< .001) and spatial notions (p< .001); 1st vs. 4th grade in fruits (p< .001), numbers (p< .001), spatial notions (p< .001) and letters (p< .05); 1st vs. 5th grade in fruits (p< .001), numbers (p< .001), spatial notions (p< .001) and letters (p< .05); 1st vs. 6th grade in fruits (p< .001), numbers (p< .001), and spatial notions (p< .001); 2nd vs. 4th grade in fruits (p< .001), animals (p< .05), spatial notions (p< .001) and letters (p< .05); 2nd vs. 5th grade in fruits (p< .001), animals (p< .001), and spatial notions (p< .001); 2nd vs. 6th grade in fruits (p< .001), animals (p< .05), and spatial notions (p< .001); 3rd vs. 4th grade in fruits (p< .05) and musical instruments (p< .05); 3rd vs. 5th grade in fruits (p< .001), and 3rd vs. 6th in fruits (p< .05). The analysis of execution time found that dyslexics were significantly slower than the typically developing readers in all the tasks: fruits F(1, 431) =332.93, p< .001; animals F(1, 431) =234.49, p< .001; colours F(1, 431) =207.63, p< .001; numbers F(1, 431) =186.63, p< .001; musical instruments F(1, 431) =222.04, p< .001; miscellaneous F(1, 431) =241.31, p< .001; spatial notions F(1, 431) =150.34, p< .001, and letters F(1, 103) =71.68, p< .001. Similarly, significant differences were found according to the grade, with students in higher grades being faster than those in lower grades when naming the different elements of the test: fruits F(5, 431) =33.71, p< .001; animals F(5, 431) =26.60, p< .001; colours F(5, 431) =27.14, p< .001; numbers F(5, 431) =44.09, p< .001; musical instruments F(5, 431) =21.72, p< .001; miscellaneous F(5, 431) =22.30, p< .001; spatial notions F(5, 431) =37.01, p< .001, and letters F(4, 103) =7.60, p< .001. Furthermore, significant group grade interactions were observed in all of the variables studied, except for musical instruments F(5, 431) =.82, p=.532, as shown in Figure 1. In the ‘letters’variable, the interaction was also significant, F(4, 103) =4.88, p=.001. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of the execution time and a posteriori comparison with Bonferroni's correction. To determine whether naming difficulties were related to performance in the different BDT items, we calculated the Pearson's correlation coefficient between the execution time among the different naming tasks and the scores in the different BDT subtests for a group of 45 dyslexics and 76 typically developing readers. This was not the case for the multiplication table and letter items, whose sample was reduced to 31 dyslexics and 63 typically developing readers, and 45 dyslexics and 62 typically developing readers, respectively. The results showed significant correlations in the group of typically developing readers between tasks of naming months backward and fruits (r=0.38, p=.001), animals (r=0.31, p< .01), colours (r=0.29, p< 0.05), musical instruments (r=0.31, p< .01), miscellaneous (r=0.35, p< .01), and spatial notions (r=0.28, p< .05), between the multiplication table and naming colours (r=0.34, p< .01) and spatial notions (r=0.26, p< .05); between subtraction and naming fruits (r=0.27, p< .05), and between backward digit span and numbers (r=0.26, p< .05). However, among the dyslexics group, significant and positive correlations were found among almost all items of the BDT, except in the multiplication table, which only correlated with naming spatial notions. The subtests of ‘b–d’confusion, repetition of multi-syllabic words, and backward digit span obtained the highest number of significant relationships with the different naming tasks. 6OUTÓN AND FERRACES TABLE 3 Group X Grade MANOVA on the errors in the different naming tasks Tasks Group Grade Group grade interaction MSDF(1, 431) MSDF(5, 431) N M SD N M SD F (5, 431) Fruits D 3.1 4.6 97.82** 1 2.7 5.7 7.08** D1 14 6.6 8.3 TR1 25 0.6 1.2 7.11** TR 0.4 1.3 2 2.3 3.9 D2 30 5.3 4.6 TR2 44 0.3 1.3 3 2.6 4.6 D3 46 4.0 5.4 TR3 28 0.3 0.6 4 1.2 2.5 D4 44 2.1 3.0 TR4 66 0.6 2.0 5 0.9 1.9 D5 45 1.5 2.5 TR5 42 0.3 0.8 6 0.7 1.4 D6 19 1.6 2.0 TR6 40 0.3 0.8 Animals D 0.6 1.6 17.51** 1 0.6 1.5 3.30** D1 14 1.1 2.2 TR1 25 0.4 0.9 2.43* TR 0.1 0.5 2 0.6 2.0 D2 30 1.3 3.0 TR2 44 0.2 0.6 3 0.2 1.3 D3 46 0.6 1.6 TR3 28 0.0 0.2 4 0.2 0.6 D4 44 0.4 0.9 TR4 66 0.1 0.3 5 0.2 0.4 D5 45 0.2 0.4 TR5 42 0.1 0.4 6 0.2 0.6 D6 19 0.3 0.6 TR6 40 0.2 0.6 Colours D 0.8 1.7 25.63** 1 0.9 2.4 2.42* D1 14 1.5 3.2 TR1 25 0.5 1.8 1.01 TR 0.2 0.7 2 0.5 1.4 D2 30 1.1 2.0 TR2 44 0.2 0.5 3 0.5 1.4 D3 46 0.8 1.7 TR3 28 0.0 0.0 4 0.3 1.0 D4 44 0.6 1.5 TR4 66 0.1 0.5 5 0.4 0.7 D5 45 0.6 0.8 TR5 42 0.1 0.4 6 0.2 0.5 D6 19 0.3 0.6 TR6 40 0.1 0.4 Numbers D 0.3 1.4 18.93** 1 0.6 2.7 5.23** D1 14 1.7 4.3 TR1 25 0.0 0.0 5.67** TR 0.0 0.2 2 0.0 0.2 D2 30 0.1 0.3 TR2 44 0.0 0.0 3 0.2 1.0 D3 46 0.4 1.3 TR3 28 0.0 0.2 4 0.1 0.3 D4 44 0.1 0.3 TR4 66 0.1 0.3 5 0.1 0.3 D5 45 0.1 0.4 TR5 42 0.1 0.2 6 0.1 0.3 D6 19 0.3 0.5 TR6 40 0.0 0.2 Musical instruments D 7.7 7.4 92.77** 1 5.5 6.8 2.53* D1 14 8.7 7.3 TR1 25 3.6 6.0 2.07* TR 2.0 3.8 2 5.2 7.0 D2 30 9.7 8.3 TR2 44 2.2 3.7 (Continues) OUTÓN AND FERRACES 7 TABLE 3 (Continued) Tasks Group Grade Group grade interaction MSDF(1, 431) MSDF(5, 431) N M SD N M SD F (5, 431) 3 6.4 7.9 D3 46 9.6 8.3 TR3 28 1.2 2.8 4 3.5 5.8 D4 44 5.8 7.4 TR4 66 1.9 3.7 5 4.3 5.0 D5 45 6.8 5.3 TR5 42 1.6 3.0 6 2.8 5.0 D6 19 5.2 6.5 TR6 40 1.7 3.7 Miscellaneous D 5.2 5.9 60.05** 1 3.4 5.0 2.24* D1 14 6.5 5.1 TR1 25 1.6 4.2 0.74 TR 1.4 3.2 2 3.2 4.9 D2 30 4.8 6.3 TR2 44 2.0 3.2 3 4.7 6.5 D3 46 6.3 7.3 TR3 28 2.0 3.6 4 3.2 4.8 D4 44 5.9 5.2 TR4 66 1.4 3.6 5 2.6 3.8 D5 45 4.0 4.1 TR5 42 1.1 2.6 6 1.4 4.3 D6 19 3.2 7.1 TR6 40 0.6 1.6 Spatial notions D 3.8 6.7 46.76** 1 6.3 8.9 12.31* D1 14 11.2 10.4 TR1 25 3.5 6.6 4.98** TR 1.0 3.6 2 3.1 6.6 D2 30 6.9 8.5 TR2 44 0.6 2.8 3 3.1 5.9 D3 46 4.2 6.5 TR3 28 1.3 4.2 4 1.6 4.4 D4 44 2.3 4.9 TR4 66 1.2 4.0 5 0.8 2.6 D5 45 1.6 3.5 TR5 42 0.0 0.0 6 0.5 2.4 D6 19 1.2 4.1 TR6 40 0.3 0.7 Letters a F(1, 103) F(4, 103) F(4, 103) D 1.8 2.8 18.70** 1 1.0 2.9 2.09 D1 7 3.4 4.7 TR1 23 0.0 0.0 3.20* TR 0.2 0.5 2 1.4 2.7 D2 13 2.9 3.4 TR2 27 0.0 0.0 3 0.8 1.5 D3 13 1.5 2.0 TR3 29 0.3 0.6 4 0.4 0.9 D4 11 0.6 1.0 TR4 20 0.2 0.7 5 0.4 0.9 D5 7 0.4 1.1 TR5 14 0.3 0.8 Note: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; D, dyslexics (n=198); TR, typical readers (n=245). *p≤.01. **p≤.001. a An ANOVA test was performed for a subgroup of the sample (dyslexics n=51; typical readers n=62). 8OUTÓN AND FERRACES Furthermore, the naming of numbers was least related to the BDT items, while the letter naming obtained the highest correlations. Table 5 shows the correlations between the BDT and naming tasks in the dyslexic group. 4|DISCUSSION One of the objectives of the present study was to analyse the developmental trajectory of the accuracy and speed of naming among dyslexics and typically developing readers from the 1st to 6th grades of primary education. The FIGURE 1 Graphical representation of the average time in seconds according to the group and grade for six of the naming tasks. Bars denote ±SEs OUTÓN AND FERRACES 9 Jones, M. W., Snowling, M. J., & Moll, K. (2016). What automaticity deficit? Activation of lexical information by readers with dyslexia in a rapid automatized naming Stroop-switch task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,42, 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000186 Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology,21,85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710050084428 Justicia, F. (1995). El desarrollo del vocabulario. Diccionario de frecuencias. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada. Kirby, J. R., Georgiou, G. K., Martinussen, R., & Parrila, R. (2010). Naming speed and reading: From prediction to instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,45(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.4 Landerl, K., Ramus, F., Moll, K., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H. T., Lohvansuu, K., …Schulte-Körne, G. (2013). Predictors of developmental dislexia in European orthographies with varying complexity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,54 (6), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12029 Layes, S., Lalonde, R., & Rebaï. (2016). Study on morphological awareness and rapid automatized naming through word reading and comprehension in normal and disabled reading Arabic-speaking children. Reading & Writing Quarterly,33(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1105763 Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the American Academy of Science, 98(23), 13464–13471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338744 Liao, CH., Georgiou, G. K., & Parrila, R. (2008). Rapid naming speed and Chinese caracter recognition. Reading and Writing, 21, 231–253. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9071-0 Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,31(2), 106–117. Miles, T. R. (1982). Bangor dyslexia test. Cambridge, England: Learning Development Aids, LDA. Miles, T. R. (1993). Dyslexia: The pattern of difficulties (2nd ed.). London, England: Whurr Publishers. Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych- 120710-100431 Out on, P. (2003). Diseño, implementaci on y evaluaci on de programas de intervenci on con disléxicos (Tesis doctoral). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Out on, P., & Su arez, A. (2010). Adaptaci on y validaci on del Test de Dislexia Bangor. Revista de Investigaci on Educativa,28(2), 445–457. Pan, J., Yan, M., Laubrock, J., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2013). Eye-voice span during rapid automatized naming of digits and dice in Chinese normal and dyslexic children. Developmental Science,6, 967–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12075 Raschle, N. M., Chang, M., & Gaab, N. (2011). Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset. NeuroImage,57, 742–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.055 Rodríguez, C., van den Boer, M., Jiménez, J. E., & de Jong, P. F. (2015). Developmental changes in the relations between RAN, phonological awareness, and reading in Spanish children. Scientific Studies of Reading,19(4), 273–288. https://doi. org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1025271 Savage, R., McBreen, M., Genesee, F., Erdos, C., Haigh, C., & Nair, A. (2018). Rapid automatic naming predicts more than sublexical fluency: Evidence from English-French bilinguals. Learning and Individual Differences,62, 153–163. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.001 Siddaiah, A., Saldanha, M., Venkatesh, S. K., Ramachandra, N. B., & Padakannaya, P. (2016). Development of rapid automatized naming (RAN) in simultaneous Kannada-English biliterate children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,45(1), 177– 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-014-9338-y Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research,73, 407–440. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543073004407 Tobia, V., & Marzocchi, G. M. (2014). Cognitive profiles of Italian children with developmental dyslexia. Reading Research Quartely,49(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.77 Tong, X., McBride, C., Lo, J. C. M., & Shu, H. (2017). A three-year longitudinal study of reading and spelling difficulty in Chinese developmental dislexia: The matter of morphological awareness. Dyslexia. An International Journal of Research and Practice,23, 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1564 Tong, X., McBride, C., Shu, H., & Ho, C. S. (2018). Reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese-English bilingual children. Dyslexia. An International Journal of Research and Practice,24,59–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1566 Toro, J., & Cervera, M. (1990). Test de an alisis de lectoescritura, TALE. Madrid, Spain: Visor. van de Ven, M., Voeten, M., Steenbeek-Planting, E. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). Post-primary reading fluency development: A latent change approach. Learning and Individual Differences,55,1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.02.001 16 OUTÓN AND FERRACES Van den Bos, K. P., Zijlstra, B. J. H., & Lutje Spelberg, H. C. (2002). Life-span data on continuous-naming speeds of numbers, letters, colors, and pictured objects, and word-reading speed. Scientific Studies of Reading,6,25–49. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s1532799xssr0601_02 Wakamiya, E., Okumura, T., Nakanishi, M., Takeshita, T., Mizuta, M., Kurimoto, N., & Tamai, H. (2011). Effects of sequential and discrete rapid naming on reading in Japanese children with reading difficulty. Brain and Development,33, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2010.12.008 Wechsler, D. (2010). Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para Niños –IV, WISC-IV. Madrid, Spain: TEA. Weng, X., Li, G., & Li, R. (2016). Mediating effects of working memory in the relation between rapid automatized naming and Chinese reading comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,45, 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10936-015-9385-z Wiig, E. H., Zureich, P., & Chan, H. H. (2000). A clinical rationale for assessing rapid automatized naming in children with language disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,33(4), 359–374. Witton, C., Swoboda, K., Shapiro, L. R., & Talcott, J. B. (2019). Auditory frequency discrimination in developmental dyslexia: A meta-analysis. Dyslexia. An International Journal of Research and Practice,26,1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1645 Wolf, M. (1986). Rapid alternating stimulus naming in the developmental dyslexias. Brain and Language,27, 360–379. Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). The rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests. Examiner's manual. Austin: Pro-ed. _ Zesławska-Fale nczyk, A., & Małyszczak, K. (2016). Umiejętno s c szybkiego nazywania i jej związek z czytaniem w grupie dzieci polskojęzycznych z dysleksją.Neuropsychiatria i Neuropsychologia,11,47–55. https://doi.org/10.5114/nan.2016. 62249 Ziegler, J. C., Castel, C., Pech-Georgel, C., & George, F. (2008). Lien entre dénomination rapide et lecture chez les enfants dyslexiques. L'année Psychologique,108(3), 395–421. How to cite this article: Out on, P., & Ferraces, M. J. (2021). Rapid serial naming: Developmental trajectory and relationship with the Bangor Dyslexia Test in Spanish students. Dyslexia,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ dys.1683 OUTÓN AND FERRACES 17