1. Northern Ontario Assessment and Resource Centre Alana Holmes, Ph.D., C.Psych Robert Silvestri M.Ed., Ph.D. candidate

2. Aboriginal Education Office in association with: Ministry of Education Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

3.  Canadian Institutes of Health Report “Literacy and Health in Canada” – Aboriginal peoples in Canada have lower reading literacy scores than non-Aboriginal Canadians  1988 needs survey by M’Chigeeng First Nation – critical to establish a community based literacy program due to high rate of residents without a high school diploma

4.  Elkind, Black, and Murray (1996) in a study of adults with reading disabilities demonstrated enhanced performance in reading speed and reading endurance when using text reading software as compared to reading unaided.  Higgins and Raskind (1997) in a study of post- secondary students with dyslexia found that disabled readers improved reading compre hension scores when utilizing text reading software.

5. An exhaustive literature search revealed that there is a dearth of studies investigating the effects of text reading software on reading skills in Aboriginal populations.

6.  Examine the efficacy of text-to-voice technology on reading comprehension performance in an Aboriginal population with self-reported reading difficulties.  Identify the cognitive correlates associated with improved reading comprehension utilizing reading technology for an Aboriginal population with self-reported reading difficulties.

7.  38 Aboriginal participants with self-identified reading difficulties  Wikwemikong First Nation n = 31, M’Chigeeng First Nation (West Bay) n = 7  Mean age = 30.05 years (SD = 12.02)  Mean grade level completed = 10.66 (SD = 1.83)  Sex Ratio = 22 males, 16 females

8.  Each participant completed a variety of cognitive and reading assessments.  Participants received a training session using assistive reading technology (proficiency with software controlled)  Counterbalanced format – all participants completed reading comprehension pre and post testing with and without the use of assistive technology.

9. Questionnaires:  Adult Reading History Questionnaire – Revised ( Parrila, Corkett, Kirby, & Hein, 2003).  Author Recognition Test (West, Stanovich, & Mitchell, 1993).  Computer Attitude Questionnaire (Knezek & Miyashita, 1993).

11. Abbreviated Author Recognition Test Instructions: Below you will see a list of 25 names. Some of the people in the list are popular writers (of books, magazine articles, and/or newspaper columns) and some are not. Please read the names and circle those individuals who you know to be writers. Do not guess, only circle those who you know are authors. Isaac Asimov Robert Tierney Isabel Beck J.R.R. Tolkien P.E. Bryant Richard Venezky Barbara Cartland Irving Wallace James Clavell Joseph Wambaugh Gerald Duffy Bob Woodward Ian Fleming Stephen J. Gould 

13. Cognitive Measures:  WAIS-3 (all subtests except Object Assembly)  TOWRE – Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word Efficiency  C-TOPP – core subtests  WIAT – word reading, reading comprehension, and pseudoword decoding  Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Test – Form G and H comprehension tests

14. 1. Self perception of reading history difficulty in elementary and secondary school accurately discriminated performance on standardized measures of reading

15. Phonological ProcessingWord Recognition ARHQ-R Secondary School Groups C-TOPP Phonological Awareness Composite** WIAT Pseudoword Decoding ** TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency ** WIAT Word Reading ** TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency ** Less Problematic Reading History 1061049510093 Significant Reading History Difficulties 8284 8284 Very Significant Reading History Difficulties 73 666467 Table 5. Adult Reading History Questionnaire - Revised Secondary School Groups and Reading Measures Standard Scores Note: ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire Revised; C-TOPP = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency ** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

16. Table 5. Adult Reading History Questionnaire - Revised Secondary School Groups and Reading Measures Standard Scores Rapid NamingPhonological MemoryReading Comprehension ARHQ-R Secondary School Groups C-TOPP Rapid Naming Composite (n.s.) C-TOPP Phonological Memory Composite ** Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Percentile ** Less Problematic Reading History 1069754th Significant Reading History Difficulties 918836th Very Significant Reading History Difficulties 977025th Note: ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire Revised; C-TOPP = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency ** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); n.s.= non- significant

17. 2. Overall, participants provided more correct answers and attempted more questions on the comprehension component of the ND when reading without assistive technology; number of incorrect answers remained constant when reading with and without assistive technology  confounds = lack of computer experience *, computer anxiety*, reading exposure (ART**), automaticity concerns ( e.g., processing speed*). ** significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * 0.05 level (two-tailed) ND Comprehension Correct Answers:  M = 13.97 without technology vs. M = 10.58 with technology; p = <.01 ND Comprehension Attempts:  M = 22.47 without technology vs. M = 18.97 with technology; p=.<01

18. 3. Students with a given set of cognitive characteristics, poor performance on non-word repetition and rapid naming tasks, demonstrated improvements in comprehension on the Nelson Denny when using assistive technology

19. Low Group (below the mean)High Group (above the mean) Answered more questions correctly with technology ( M = 7.25 with technology vs. M = 4.25 without technology; p = <.01 Answered more questions correctly without technology (M = 9.00 with technology vs. M = 14.57 without technology; p = <.01 Attempted more questions with technology (M = 18.00 attempts with technology vs. M = 12.00 without technology; p =.13) Attempted more questions without technology (M = 16.43 with technology vs. M = 23.57 without technology; p =.02) Higher reading comprehension percentile with technology (M = 9 th with technology vs. M = 2 nd without technology; p =.01 Higher reading comprehension percentile without technology (M = 17 th with technology vs. M = 38 th without technology; p = <.01

20. PredictorsSignificanceZero Order Correlation Partial Correlation Verbal Comprehension Index.05.57.35 Working Memory Index.01.53.44 CTOPP Memory for Digits.01.51 CTOPP Blending Words.01-.06-.71 TOWRE Sight Word.08.61.32 Multiple Correlation Coefficient =.86

21. PredictorSignificanceZero Order Correlation Partial Correlation Verbal Comprehension Index.01.53.45 Processing Speed Index.01-.19-.52 CTOP Phoneme Elision.01.24-.46 CTOPP Blending Words.02.42.43 WIAT Pseudoword.01.56.51 Multiple Correlation Coefficient =. 79

22. Assesses many of the underlying skills associated with utilizing assistive technology for reading comprehension. 1. Sound Perception – acoustic quality and phonotactic frequency (Coady et al., 2005, 2007) 2. Phonological Awareness and Processing – processing of phonemes (Bowery, 1996) 3. Phonological Memory –the ability the store phonological units (i.e., phonemes); associated with depth of vocabulary (verbal comprehension)

23. Poor NWR performance Good NWR performance Deficits in processing mechanisms underlying NWR Have prerequisite NWR skills Congruent with AT instructional format Incongruent with AT instructional format Intrinsic processing + instructional format = germane cognitive load (reading comp. gains) Intrinsic processing + instructional format = high cognitive load (expertise reversal effect) AT - Highly structured, word-by- word reading format

24. 1. ARHQ-R predicted general reading difficulties in the sampled population; it holds merit as a screening tool to discern reading problems in Aboriginal adults. 2. Examining students’ phonological processing profiles prior to assigning reading technology may be a useful practice if similar results are found in a larger research sample. 3. Future studies: follow-up study with participants utilizing technology for a longer period of time.

25.  Alana Holmes, Ph.D., C.Psych. – (705) 524- 7397; alana.holmes@cambriancollege.caalana.holmes@cambriancollege.ca  Robert Silvestri, M.Ed., Ph.D., candidate - (705) 524-7397; robert.silvestri@cambriancollege.carobert.silvestri@cambriancollege.ca

26.  The results obtained in this study are preliminary as they were obtained with a small number of research participants. These results need to be replicated with larger, heterogeneous groups before implementation into disability services or clinical practice.