Early identification and prevention of difficulties in the acquisition of basic scholastic skills – reading and math
Heikki Lyytinen
Agora Centre & Department of Psychology
University of Jyväskylä
Niilo Mäki Institute
Finland
Stockholm, 25. October, 2012

Overview of the content of this presentation
• Learning to read highly transparent orthography
• The developmental association between spoken and written language skills – highlights from the
Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD)
• Introduction to the JLD: goals and design
• Overview of the predictive relations and their modelling
• Early identification of children in need of support
• Supporting reading acquisition
.. Learning the connections between spoken and written language using a learning game - Graphogame

• Basic reading skill – ability to pronounce written words accurately
• Literacy – readiness to comprehend fluently written language; requires
– sufficient mastery of the spoken language meant to be learned to read
– accurate and fluent basic decoding skill
– a lot of reading to acquire functional reading skill
– appropriate vocabulary knowledge, motivation and strategy to comprehend the written language

Development of nonword reading accuracy during 1st Grade in different orthographies
(Scottish data up to 2nd grade)
100
80
60
40
20
Greek
Portuguese
French
Finnish
Scottish
Spanish
0
TP0 TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5
Before school and then in equal time steps to the end of the 2.grade
Results from COST A8, Seymour, et al. 2003

Reading acquisition and the consistency of the connections between spoken and written language
• If the reading instruction is organized as it should… the time child needs for the acquisition of the basic reading skill is the shorter
– the smaller the number of connections one has to learn (Finnish, Swedish.. < 30 letter-sounds)
– the more consistent are the connections, ie. the fewer complexities/alternatives need to be learned and
– the more optimally built phonics instruction is available for successfully engaging the child in training the skill

..when biological factors compromise reading acquisition..
Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia
(JLD; 1993-)
The JLD research group
Mikko Aro, Timo Ahonen, Kenneth Eklund, Tomi Guttorm , Jarmo Hämäläinen,
Ritva Ketonen, Marja-Leena Laakso, Seija Leinonen, Matti Leiwo, Paavo
Leppänen, Paula Lyytinen, Kurt Muller, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Anne
Puolakanaho, Ulla Richardson, Paula Salmi, Asko Tolvanen, Minna Torppa,
Helena Viholainen

(from children at familial risk for dyslexia)
•
•
•

DEFINING FAMILIAL RISK IN THE
JYVÄSKYLÄ LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF
DYSLEXIA (JLD)
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE AT-RISK FAMILIES: parents
• At least one parent with diagnosed dyslexia from multiple criteria
• Reported dyslexia among at least one of the first degree relatives
• IQ at least 85 (Raven matrices)
• No reported language problems in childhood or later
• No neurological or psychiatric symptoms
• No hearing problems
For detals, see Leinonen et al. Reading and Writing, 2001

Born at the hospitals of Central
Finland during
01.04.93-
31.07.96
I Screening II Screening III
Screening
Short questionnaire administered at the maternity clinics
Comprehensive questionnaire
N=8427 parents
N=3146 parents
Assessment of parents’ reading and spelling skills
N=410 parents
AT -RISK
GROUP
N=117 infants
CONTROL
GROUP
Number of children who have attended the last originally agreed assessment phase at the 3 rd grade
AT -RISK
GROUP
N=108 children
CONTROL
GROUP
N= 9368 infants N=105 infants
N=92 children
Collection of the data continues
Neonata l
6 month
14 month
18 month
N
=
107
N
=
112
N
=
108
2 years
2½ years
3½ years
4½ years
5 years
5½ years
6½ years
I grade
II grade
N
=
108
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
107
N
=
108
III grade
N
=
108
VII grade
N
=
85
VIII grade
N
=
101
IX grade
N
=
76
N
=
96
N
=
94
N
=
94
N
=
95
N
=
96
N
=
94
N
=
95
N
=
93
N
=
93
N
=
93
CLASSMATES
N
=
93
N
=
92
N =
151 5
N
=
92
N
=
92
N =
2859
N
=
66
N =
1537
N
=
81
N
=
73
N =
1508

Measures taken at the end of the 2th grade at the averate age of 8 y. 9 months
Reading speed
• Reading 3 and 4 syllabic words and non words – mean response time
• Reading text – read words / minute
• Reading non word text – read words / minute
• Reading word list, standardized test – correctly read words in two minutes
Reading and writing accuracy
• Reading 3 and 4 syllabic words and non words – correct / 40
• Reading text – percentage of correctly read words
• Reading non word text – percentage of correctly read words
• Spelling words and non words – correct / 18
Criteria
A child was diagnosed as dyslexic, if he / she scored below or at the 10 percentile of the contol group in at least
1.
Three out of four speed measures OR
2.
Three out of four accuracy measures OR
3.
Two speed AND two accuracy measures

• Expectation of the genetic influences
– > 1/2 would be affected (due to 1 parent’s dyslexia)
• The observed result: 42 /107
– compromised initial reading acquisition 48 / 107
– severe, persistent reading disorder 42 / 107

At risk group
N=108
Children with reading disability
1st gr 2nd gr 3rd gr 8th gr
N = 38 N = 38 N = 36 N = 42
Control group
N=92
1st gr
N = 10
2nd gr
N = 9
3rd gr
N = 10
8th gr
N = 12

IDENTIFYING & PREDICTING RISK a summary of significant measures
P = Predictors
D = Differences between groups
Age
7 -
5 -
Variable yrs Reading accuracy & speed yrs Naming speed
D
P & D
4 - 6 yrs Phonological manipulation P & D
5 - 6 yrs Letter knowledge P & D
5 yrs Verbal memory
3 - 6 yrs Phonological sensitivity
3 - 5 yrs Inflectional skills
P & D
P & D
P & D
2 - 3 yrs Articulation accuracy P
2 yrs Maximum sentence length P & D
6 mth Speech perception
Birth ERP to speech sound
P
P
&
&
D
D
Lyytinen et al., Annals of Dyslexia, 2004; Dyslexia, 2004; Sage Handbook of Dyslexia, 2008

METHODS – ERP recording
From: F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4 (Ag/AgCl-electrodes), referred to ipsilateral mastoid
Bandpass: 0.5-35 Hz, sampling rate 200 Hz

Predictors:
ERP responses to speech sounds which significantly differentiate children with and without risk
Criterion measures:
The most important language measures that predict early reading skills and early reading

Newborn ERPs in the at-risk group EogL
Boston Naming Test 5.5 y
-.311*
Audio-phonemic associations 5.5 y
-.451*
Word identification 6.5 y
-.308*
Phoneme Deletion 6.5 y
-.339*
Letter identification 6.5 y
-.339*
Word identification 6.5 y
-.339**
Writing letters 6.5 y -.336*
Reading 6.5 y -.329*
F3
C3
P3
F4
EogR
500ms
_
5 µV
+
C4
P4
540-630 ms
Rapid Naming: Faults 6.5 y
.414*
Naming 1st Phoneme 6.5 y
-.342*
Word identification 6.5 y
-.415**
/ba/
/da/
/ga/
Guttorm, et al. (2005) Cortex 41, 291-303.

The letter knowledge of 3.5-6.5 year olds (JLD) and reading acquisition n o w n n a m e s k
L t t e t e r
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3,09
0,85
10,41
2,68
13,57
3,74
16,59
6,21
25,41
14,03
Lyytinen et al., (2007)
Nordic Psychology
3.5
4.5
5
Age (years)
5.5
6.5
Reading acquisition fails during
1. grade
Reading acquisition normal during
1. grade

From the JLD-follow-up from birth to school age of reading-related development
Receptive speech, 2.5 y.
Pseudoword repetition, 3.5 y.
Phonological skills, 3.5 y.
Phonological skills, 4.5 y.
Phonological skills, 5.5 y.
Rapid naming, 5.5 y.
Rapid naming, 6.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 3.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 4.5 y.
Letter knowledge, 5 y.
Letter knowledge 5.5 y.
IQ, 5 y.
Reading composite, 1. gr.
Reading composite 2. gr.
Lyytinen, et al.
Scand. J. of
Psychology,
2009.
-3 -2 z-score
-1 0 1
(mean = 0, sd =1)
Individual profiles of the prediction measures of the JLD children whose reading acquisition was most severely compromised

• Familial background increases the risk of dyslexia substantially – relatively the more so, the more severe reading difficulties are attended
• Speech perception is predictive from 6 months and does so at school age still after controlling for other known predictors
• Among at risk children very early language delays can be informative, both in the expressive and receptive language domains but receptive language may be more important
• Poor letter name learning predicts without false negatives
(false positives should be accepted)
• Naming fluency predicts the most persistent difficulties
…also when the phonological skills revealed by traditional assessment tools fail to predict

Graphogame
The task: Catch the letter that matches the sound you hear!
Competitor’s results
Player’s results
Falling letters
Correctly chosen letters
Mouse pointer
Player’s catcher
Competitor’s catcher
Programming: Tuomo Hokkanen

A learning environment for L1 and L2 spoken and written languages: Graphogame
Introduces reading skill of any wanted language
Teaches the phonetic basis of language with the help of written language
– Tunes the speech perception for the use of a wanted language
– Helps in training correct pronunciation of the sounds of a language
– Introduces spoken words (vocabulary) via written language

• Applies phonics: trains the connections between spoken and written items in optimized order: from easy to differentiate to more similar phonemic units … from letter-sounds to syllables and words
• Adapts automatically to child’s actual skill level
• Guarantees experience of success (80%)

The cumulative number of learned items
Exemplary learning curves of 4-8 year olds (N=726)
Hours of playing
Modelling: Janne Kujala

18
16
22
20
14
12
10
Before training
Ability to assemble sounds on the basis of letters
After 1. training session
Order of training sessions:
1.Math game – 2.Letter-sound g.
1.Letter-sound g.
– 2. Math game
After 2. training session

Remedial reading intervention and computerassisted instruction (CARRI)
(T1-T6)
CARRI group
(n=25)
Screeni ng test
(N=166)
Mainstream group
(n=116
)
RRI group
(n=25)
Subtes t
2
Subtes t
3
Subtes t
4
Subtes t
5
Post test
Followup 1
IQ
Estimatio n
Followup 2
Remedial reading intervention (RRI)
(T1-T6)
Screenin g
August
Grade 1
Grouppin g
Septemb er
Grade 1
T1
October
Grade 1
T2
Decembe r
Grade 1
T3
January
Grade 1
T4
March
Grade 1
T5
May
Grade 1
T6
August
Grade 2
T7
May
Grade 2
T8
August
Grade 3
CARRI group = Computer assisted remedial reading intervention group
Mainstream group = Mainstream reading instruction group
RRI group = Remedial reading intervention group
(=1/4 of the remedial reading support session)
Saine et al., Child Development, 2011

Saine et al., Child Development, 2011

Spelling
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T5
RRI
CARRI
Mainstream
T6 T7 T8
Saine et al., Child Development, 2011

Effective if not used too early, starting just before child enters school
– practiced > 1 times per day in subsequent days
– short < 12 minutes’ sessions
– playing in so ”active” form as possible (by e.g. repeating the sounds)
– the task of parents: to show that they are happy when child plays
– playing long enough (2-20 hours)
See: www.lukimat.fi
(where Finnish children play) or www.graphogame.com
for description and demo in English

For explanations, see Lyytinen et al., 2009

Illustration of the game developed byJanne Kujala

GG training of <5 hours affects brain
HL and UR in collaboration with Swiss colleagues Daniel Brandeis, Sylvia Brehm
Pre-Post GG: Children (n=15) before and after playing with Graphogame
LG-FG, IFG
Words-
False fonts
No difference Increased activation in
Post-pre interaction between groups playing Graphogame vs Mathgame (same with numbers): p<0.005
Brem et al., PNAS, 2010, 107(17), 7939-7944.

• Dynamic assessment:
– Online follow-up of the proceedings of the training of the letter-sound connections
– Application of the observed results to guiding the next steps of the practice towards contents still in need of further practice i.e. integrating assessment and intervention as made in the response-to-intervention model
…note, the cycle of refocussing the intervention can happen in seconds

• All children entering school this autumn are screened
– for familial risk and/or letter knowledge < 7
Motivating children showing such a risk to play dynamic assessment version of Graphogame
> resistance to training with optimal phonics
 Children showing resistance (1-2%) followed individually for testing the limits of the Graphogame
 Note: percentiles 3-15% trained successfully

• Ekapeli/Graphogame used under the responsibility and funding of the Ministry of Education in Finland
• > 200.000 users (2006-)
• Centralized automatized feedback from our servers
• Could work as main model for implementations elsewhere as well

The basic principles of Graphogame development for a new writing system
• Careful study of the written language environment with local experts for developing and implementing an appropriate content
• Evidence-based documentation of the efficiency of the game of the content before any distribution
• Distribution and use under the responsibility of the local Ministry of Education after research has shown its efficiency in a new orthographic/cultural environment

• Call: +358 50 552 4892
• Have a look of our research: heikki.lyytinen.info
• Ask for reprint(s): heikki.lyytinen@psyka.jyu.fi
• The service for Finns: http://www.lukimat.fi/
• ..in English: http://www.graphogame.com
• See also grapholearn.info
for the whole approach