WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 1

Effects of Working Memory Training in Children with Literacy Disorders: Mediating

Role of Updating and Inhibition

Literacy disorders are one of the greatest obstacles in education. These severe

difficulties in reading and/or spelling occur in spite of unimpaired intellectual abilities and

adequate education. In other words, there must be a considerable discrepancy between

general intellectual abilities and actual literacy performance, and the discrepancy is not

primarily a result of: (1) visual, hearing, or motor handicaps; (2) mental retardation; (3)

emotional disturbance; (4) environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (Ramus and

Ahissar, 2012). Cutoff points for the size of this critical discrepancy typically vary between 1 to

2 standard deviations of the psychometric norm distributions (Rice et al., 2012). Although

there is an old and enduring controversy concerning the reliability of the discrepancy

criterion) the World Health Organization (WHO) and American Psychological Association

(APA) still adhere to these selection criteria to screen and diagnose for literacy disorders

(Francis et al., 2005; Stanovich, 2005), and hence this conventional definition of literacy

disorders is adopted by the current study.

It is estimated that 3.6- 7.3 % of all school-going children in the worlds suffer from

literacy disorders (Lewis, Hitch, & Walker, 1994; Miles, Haslum, & Wheeler, 1998; Rutter et

al., 2004). Educational attainments are often lower in literacy disordered populations than in

typically developing peers (Records et al., 1992; Felsenfeld et al., 1994; Stothard et al., 1998;

Clegg et al., 2005; Snowling et al., 2006). For example, young adults (17-25 years) with

developmental literacy disorders more often did not receive post-secondary education than

controls (41% vs. 29%) (Records et al., 1992). Results from a 28-year longitudinal study of

adults with histories of moderate literacy disorders indicated that they more often occupied

jobs considered unskilled or semiskilled than controls or same-sex unafflicted siblings.

Furthermore, the unskilled jobs were such that required minimal reading and writing skills
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 2

(Felsenfeld et al., 1994). In another study conducted by Clegg et al. (2005), the language

disorder group had significantly worse social adaptation (with prolonged unemployment and

a paucity of close friendships and romantic relationships) compared with both their siblings

and controls their mid-30s. Specifically, 17 men in the language disorder group had

occupations consisting mainly of unskilled and manual labor occupations and almost two-

thirds had experienced prolonged (over two years) periods of unemployment. 3 had never

been continually been in paid employment. Lastly, 4 of these 17 men had developed serious

mental health problems. 2 out of the 4 men had developed schizophrenia, 1 was diagnosed

with a major depressive disorder in his late twenties, while another subject was given a

diagnosis of personality disorder in his early thirties.

Given the long-lasting detrimental effects of literacy disorders on academic

attainments, career developments and life quality of the affected population, early

identification of causal factors of literacy disorders are obvious. In previous research,

phoneme awareness and letter knowledge are both found to play an important role in

predicting early literacy problems (Lyytinen, Erskine, Tolvanen, Torppa, et al., 2006;

Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Many studies have shown that children at

risk for literacy problems benefit from early intervention programs focusing on phonological

awareness and letter identification (Lundberg, 1994; Poskiparta, Niemi, & Vauras, 1999).

However, some children do not seem to respond to such programs (Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006).

One possible explanation for the existence of such “treatment-resistant” children is that these

children have working memory deficits (Howes, Bigler, Burlingame, Lawson, 2003;

Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007). Working memory (WM) has been conceptualized as a brain

system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of information necessary for

complex cognitive tasks (Baddeley, 1992).

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 3

Working Memory Model

Various models of WM have been developed since the conception of the idea, and the

model developed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974) has proved to be a particularly useful

theoretical model in numerous studies on learning disabilities. Baddeley & Hitch’s model

distinguished between three components of WM. The modality free central executive (CE) is

a kind of supervisory system mainly responsible for regulating and coordinating cognitive

processes occurring in its two limited-capacity subordinate systems: the phonological loop

and the visual-spatial sketchpad. Further functions of the CE that have since been identified

Baddeley (1996) include inhibition, planning, switching attention, monitoring the processing

of temporarily stored information, and retrieving representations from long-term memory.

The two subordinate systems, on the other hand, perform modality specific operations.

Verbal and auditory information are stored temporarily and processed in the phonological

loop (Pickering, Gathercole, Hall, & Lloyd, 2001). There are two subsystems under the

phonological loop: the phonological store and the subvocal rehearsal. The phonological store

holds information in a speech-based form (i.e., spoken words) for 1-2 seconds and is

implicated in speech perception. The subvocal rehearsal is used to rehearse and store verbal

information from the phonological store and is linked to speech production (Pickering,

Gathercole, Hall, & Lloyd, 2001). The visual-spatial sketchpad is concerned with

remembering and processing visual and spatial information: it comprises a visual cache for

static visual information and an inner scribe for dynamic spatial information (Logie &

Pearson, 1997).

The Role of Working Memory in Reading or Spelling

WM is important for successful reading and spelling processes (Gathercole &

Baddeley, 1993; Brunswick, Martin, & Rippon, 2012). Temporary storage and process of

material that has been read or heard is said to depend on WM abilities (Baddeley & Logie,
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 4

1999). Children who are just learning to read and spell make use of WM capacities during

word reading and spelling by decoding phonemes, encoding phonemes, and retaining them

simultaneously until the word is recognized or written. For advanced readers, in addition of

the aforementioned basic reading processes, WM capacities are also needed to understand

and retain word, phrases, sentences, and propositions that, in turn, are necessary to construct

coherent and meaningful interpretation of the reading materials.

Working Memory and Literacy Disorders

Due to its relevance to reading processes, WM is among the potential causal factors of

literacy disorders addressed in recent years. Research has provided numerous indications that

literacy disorders are associated with impairments in WM (Alloway & Gathercole, 2006;

Pickering, 2006a), though the evidence suggested that not all components of WM are equally

involved. Firstly, the visual-spatial WM performance is mostly found to be not impaired in

children with literacy disorders (Jefferies & Everratt, 2004; Kibby, Marks, Morgan, & Long,

2004; Schuchardt et al., 2008; Smith-Spark & Fisk, 2007; Landerl, Fussenegger, Moll, &

Willburger, 2009). Next, while there is an undisputed consensus that children with specific

reading disabilities have deficits in phonological processing and storage (Fisk, Fawcett, &

Nicholson, 2003; Vellutino et al., 2004; Pickering, 2006b; Swanson, 2006; Smith-Spark &

Fisk, 2007 ), findings on their CE functioning are less conclusive: besides the claim of a

distinct CE deficit in addition to phonological impairment (Palmer, 2000;Swanson &

Ashbaker, 2000; Landrel, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004; Swanson, 2006), it has also been

alternatively hypothesized that observable lower level CE functioning in these children can

actually be fully explained by phonological loop impairments instead of CE impairments per

se (Kibby et al., 2004; Schuchardt et al., 2008). The former position is known as the

executive processing model, while the latter is known as the phonological processing model

(Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004).

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 5

The executive processing model assumes that there is variance that is unique to

particular systems of WM (i.e CE and phonological processing), as well as some shared

variance between these systems (see Swanson & Alexander, 1997 for further discussion on

this topic). In direct support of this model, Swanson (1999) showed that when IQ and age

were controlled, phonological processing and CE functioning each contributed unique

variance to reading and spelling difficulties in literacy disordered children. Identical results

have also been obtained in other similar studies (Swanson & Berninger, 1996; Swanson &

Ashbaker, 2000; Landrel, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004). In contrast with the executive

processing model, the phonological processing model states that individuals with literacy

disorders have WM impairments that are confined to the phonological loop subsystem. In

support of this model, Schuchardt et al. (2008) found that in a group of German speaking

children, all significance differences in CE functioning between the literacy disorder group

and control group disappeared when phonological WM scores were partialed out from the

analyses. The author argued that such results indicated that the most relevant working

memory deficit in children with literacy disorders is the phonological impairment rather than

CE impairment. Identical results had also been obtained by Kibby et al. (2004) using a

sample of English speaking American children.

In short, based on the studies reviewed above, it can be seen that the two competing

hypotheses have each garnered a decent amount of supporting evidences at the point of

writing, and that currently there seems to be no reasonable way to determine which of these

two competing models provides a more accurate explanation for the involvement of CE in

literacy disorders. However, the current study proposed that it is possible to test the two

competing models is by administering WM training to children with literacy disorders. If the

executive processing model is true, then WM training which combines phonological training

and CE training components should results in a greater improvement in reading and writing
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 6

performance in children with literacy disorders, compared to WM training with only a

phonological training component. In contrary, if the phonological processing model is true,

then WM training with both phonological and CE training components should not fare any

better than WM training with only a phonological training component in terms of improving

reading and writing performance in literacy disordered children.

Working Memory Training and Literacy Disorders

Given the numerous demonstrations that low WM capacities are present in children

with literacy disorders, researchers have developed tremendous interest in using WM training

as an intervention for children with literacy disorders (deJong, 2006). The idea behind such

WM training is simple: if reading/spelling difficulties in literacy disorders are at least partly

caused by WM problems, then deliberate WM training should be able to increase WM

capacity and in turn improves reading/spelling performance. The idea that WM training can

lead to transfer to academic outcomes depends foremost on an individual’s working memory

being modifiable by such deliberate training (Redick et al., 2015). Previous work have shown

that deliberate WM training can produce short-term improvements in working memory skills,

regardless of their subtypes ( for reviews, see Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013 and Shipstead,

Redick, & Engle, 2012). In a dramatic example, Ericsson et al. (1980) reported a subject who,

through deliberate WM training, was able to increase his serial recall of digits to 79 in a row.

However, despite the numerous demonstrations that WM deficits plays an important role in

literacy disorders, the actual results from WM training studies in improving reading and

spelling abilities have been less than optimistic. A meta-analysis on the topic was conducted

by Melby-Lervag & Hulme in 2013. The authors included 23 relevant studies in their review,

and concluded that there are no convincing research evidences suggesting that any type of

WM training (i.e phonological, visual-spatial, CE or mixed) could improve reading and

spelling in learning disabled children. Such conclusion echoes the conclusion reached by
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 7

Shipstead et al. (2012) in an earlier review. Although a lone study conducted by Dahlin in

2011 reported that a computerized WM training was effective in improving reading word

decoding, reading comprehension and orthographical verification in literacy disordered

children, the study was limited by its small and highly skewed sample (i.e n=57, there were

46 boys, but only 11 girls in the sample). On one hand, numerous researches have indicated

that WM deficits play an important role in literacy disorders. On the other hand, majority of

WM training studies have indicated that WM training are not effective in remediating reading

and spelling difficulties in literacy disorders. What exactly have caused such heterogeneity

between these two lines of research? Relevant WM training studies on arithmetic disorders

suggested that the problem may lies with the fact that researchers often treat CE as a single

unified system (Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). As mentioned afore, some

theorists (i.e proponents of executive processing model) believed that CE deficiencies

contribute unique and shared variance to literacy disorders, given that phonological loop is at

least partly controlled by the CE system, and given that most children with literacy disorders

do show deficient performance on CE tasks (Palmer, 2000;Swanson & Ashbaker, 2000;

Kibby et al., 2004; Landrel, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004; Swanson, 2006; Schuchardt,

Maehler, & Hasselhorn, 2008). Current evidences suggest that CE is not a single unified

system (Baddeley, 1996; Miyake et al., 2000). In adults, Miyake et al. (2000) showed that at

least three separate CE subsystems should be distinguished: updating, inhibition, and

switching. Willcutt et al. (2001) found similar factors in children. Updating refers to the

ability of modifying the content of memory to accommodate new input (Morris & Jones,

1990). Inhibition corresponds to the capacity to suppress dominant, automatic or prepotent

responses deliberately (St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). Switching refers to the

ability to alternate between different tasks, task sets, mental sets or operations (Monsell,

1996; deJong, 2006). Many theorists have suggested that each of these subsystems may have
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 8

contributed uniquely to enable the CE to be able to coordinate between the two slave-systems

(see deJong, 2006 for a review). Hence, even though children with literacy disorders do show

deficiencies in their CE coordinative functioning, it may not be their CE coordinative

component that is faulty; it may be one of these three lower level subsystems that are faulty

instead. This may explain why previous WM training targeting to improve CE coordinative

functioning would not remediate reading and spelling difficulties in children with literacy

disorders. Such idea is preliminary supported by previous studies showing that children with

reading disabilities do have difficulty suppressing irrelevant information (i.e inhibition) and

monitoring incoming information (i.e updating) (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Chiappe et al., 2000;

Passolunghi, Cornoldi, & De Liberto, 1999; Swanson, 1999). However, to confirm if this

indeed was the case, large scale study comparing the effectiveness (i.e in terms of their ability

to improve reading and spelling in literacy disorder subjects) of WM training module

combining phonological loop and CE coordination training to module combining

phonological loop training and updating/inhibition training, needs to be conducted. To the

author’s best knowledge, such study has yet to be conducted and remained a research gap in

the relevant body of literatures. The current study aimed to bridge the gap by conducting such

study.

Research Questions

Based on research gaps identified above, the current study presents the following

research questions:

RQ 1: Will WM training with a phonological and CE training component be more effective

than WM training with only phonological training component, in terms of improving

reading/spelling abilities of children with literacy disorder?

RQ 2: Do CE sub-processes such as inhibition and/or updating mediate the relationship

between WM and literacy abilities (i.e reading and spelling)?

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 9

Methods

Design

The current study used a pre-/posttest experimental design without control group, with

random assignment to one out of four of the training groups. There is 1 independent variable

in this study, namely the type of WM training. The independent variable has four levels,

namely: (1). phonological only training; (2). phonological + double span training;

(3). phonological + updating training; (4). phonological + inhibition training. There are two

dependent variables in the current study, namely (1) spelling abilities, measured by Morrison-

McCall spelling test; (2) reading abilities, measured by IOTA reading test.

Sample

The sample of this study will consist of 200 children with literacy disorders recruited

from the following locations located in Selangor State of Malaysia: (1) the pediatric

department of Malaysian public and private hospitals (2) counselling and rehabilitation

centres for children with disabilities. The sample size is determined using the rule of thumb

proposed by Kleinbaum, Kupper and Muller (1998): the ideal number of data points (i.e

sample size) should be 5 to 10 times the number of variables, with minimum 5 data points for

each level of the variable. The current study has 1 independent variable with 4 levels, thus the

minimum sample size would be as follows: 4 x 5=20. In accordance with Kleinbaum and

associates’ advice, the current study chooses to establish a sample that is 10 times the

minimum sample size, thus 10 x 20=200.

The sampling method used will be convenience sampling. The experimenters will first

approach doctors/ counsellors/ psychologists/ centre owners in the settings mentioned afore,

in order to obtain a list of parents with children suspected of having reading/spelling

difficulties. Then, parents/caretakers will be approached individually by experimenters in the

hospital, and briefed about the purpose of the study before they decide whether to participate
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 10

or not. They will also be informed that they have the right to withdraw from the study any

time they wish to, even after they agreed to participate in the study.

There are two exclusion criteria for the current study. Firstly, children who are not

native English speaker will not be included in the current study sample. This is to eliminate

any additional problems that could arise due to subjects’ unfamiliarity with English, as most

measurement tools used in this study are in English. Next, subjects who are currently

receiving orthographic or phonetic spelling intervention for reading/spelling difficulties will

be excluded from the study. This is to ensure that the improvements in reading and spelling

abilities, if any, did not occur due to any extraneous training other than WM training

administered in the current study. On the other hand, there are also two inclusion criteria for

this study. Firstly, children need to have an IQ of 80 and above to be included in the current

study, as 80 is the conventional cut-off point for normal IQ classification (Putnam, 2006).

Besides that, subject need to below 16th percentile (1 standard deviation below mean) on the

Morrison-McCall pelling Test and IOTA reading test. This is to ensure that the subjects fit

the operational definition of literacy disorder adopted by the current study “to classify for

literacy disorders, there must be a discrepancy of at least one standard deviation between

subject’s general intellectual abilities (IQ) and actual literacy performances”.

Apparatus and Materials

Pre-/Post-test materials. Four measurement tools, namely demographic form,

Wechsler intelligence scale for children fourth edition (WISC-IV), Morrison-McCall Spelling

Test, and IOTA reading test will be used in this study. Among the 4 instruments, the

demographic will be complete by the parents, while the rest will be complete by the child

participants. All four measurement tools will be used in pre-test, while only Morrison-McCall

spelling test and IOTA reading test will be repeated as post-test. Out of the 3 instruments to

be instruments to be completed by child subject, WISC-IV will be used to assess IQ, while
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 11

Morrison-McCall spelling test will be used to assess spelling abilities, and IOTA reading test

will be used to assess reading abilities. To be included into the study, the subject needs to

have an overall IQ score of 80 or higher on WISC-IV, and they also need to score <16th

percentile on the Morrison-McCall spelling test and IOTA reading test.

Demographic forms. A demographic form will used to collect demographic data from

the parents. The child’s demographic data that will be collected includes child’s name, age

and gender. The demographic form will also contain two yes-no questions asking if: (1) the

child is a native English speaker (2) the child is currently receiving any orthographic or

phonetic spelling intervention for reading/spelling difficulties.

Wechsler intelligence scale for children fourth edition (WISC-IV). The WISC‐IV is

a measure of cognitive ability for children aged 6 years to 16 years 11 months. The 10 core

subtests yield a full‐scale IQ and four indices of verbal comprehension (i.e. VCI), perceptual

reasoning, working memory (i.e. WMI), and processing speed (Wechsler, 2003). For the

current study, the full scale IQ score is taken to be an indication of the subjects’ general

intellectual capacities. The WISC‐IV is widely used around the world and has excellent

internal consistency, test–retest reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity (see

Kaufman, Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006 for a review).

Morrison-McCall spelling Test. Developed in 1923 by J. Cayce Morrison and

William McCall, the Morrison-McCall Spelling Scale is widely used in K-12 schools for

screening of spelling problems in grade 2 through grade 8. It consisted of 8 parallel forms of

50 words, the words in each form were selected based on the list of the 5000 most commonly

used English words and they were arranged progressively from easy to difficult (Fountas &

Pinnell, 2011). To score the Morrison-McCall Spelling Test, the administrator needs to count

the number of words that the test taker spelled correctly in a form, and compare the test

taker’s score to the standardized norm to establish the spelling abilities (expressed in grade-
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 12

equivalent) (Fountas & Pinnell, 2011). Morrison-McCall Spelling Test was found to possess

excellent convergent validity (average r=0.90, r values ranging from 0.874 to 0.922) when

correlated with Edwards & Whitted Diagnostic Spelling Test (Whitted, 1954).

IOTA reading test. The IOTA reading test is one of the subtests of the Monroe

Diagnostic Reading Battery (Monroe, 1932, mentioned in Bejar, 1984). The test consisted of

53 words distributed over 3 reading cards. Most of the words are purely phonetic (i.e the

pronunciation highly correlates to the written form of the words). The IOTA reading test has

norms which extend up to the 5th grade level, and it is used extensively in K-12 schools,

reading clinics and other specialized settings in United States for screening of reading

problems (Fountas & Pinnell, 2011). To score the IOTA reading test, the administrator counts

the number of words that the test taker read correctly in a form, and compare the test taker’s

score to the standardized norm to establish the reading abilities (expressed in grade-

equivalent) (Monroe, 1979).

WM training tasks. Four measurement tools, namely single phonology n-back task,

random generation task, memory updating task, and video game control task will be used in

the WM training of this study.

Single phonology n-back task. This task is modified loosely based on what was

described in Yang, Peng, Zhang, & Mo (2017). In the n-back paradigm, the subject is

presented with a sequence of stimuli, and the task requires the subject to decide if the current

stimulus matches the one from n turns earlier in the sequence (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Perrig, &

Meier, 2010). In the single phonology n-back task, there are eight levels of difficulty, namely

1-back to 8 back. Each level have 15 trials, and each stimulus will be presented for 500 ms.

Five English vowels (“a,” “e,” “i,” “o,” “u,”) will be presented randomly across trials.

Participants had 2500ms at the end of each trial whether the current vowel was the same

vowel played n turns ago by pressing the designated button on the screen (“ For example, in a
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 13

trial of a 2-back task, the participant hear “a” first, then hear “u” then hear “e” and the

participant will be asked if “e” is the identical to or different from the vowel presented 2 turns

ago, and so the answer should be “different” for this trial. Of the trials, 10 should be judgeded

as “different”, while 5 should be judged “same”.

Double span task. Double span task is a widely used WM task that is assumed to

measure an individual’s general CE capacity, or in other words, one’s ability to coordinate

the functioning of the phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad (Towse & Houston-

Price, 2001). In this task, pictures of well-known objects (e.g moon, knife, car, window and

etc.) are presented in different locations on a 3 by 3 matrix. Children had to recall

simultaneously the pictures by verbally recoding the semantic content (phonological demand)

and their location (visual spatial demand). In the current study, the difficulty level of the

double span task is interactively adjusted. The subjects will starts will the simplest version of

the task with 7 objects displayed one after another on a 3 x 3 matrix. The subject will proceed

to the next level of difficulty after the completed 5 rounds in current level of difficulty

without any error. For every increased, the size of the matrix will increase by 1 (e.g from 3 x

3 to 4 x 4), and the number of objects displayed will also be doubled.

Random generation task. The random generation task has been well researched and

validated in cognitive neuroscience realm (Baddeley, 1996; Swanson, 2011). The subjects

were to say aloud a letter at a rate of roughly one letter per second in a random and

nonsystematic order. They were told to avoid stereotype and well-learned sequences such as

a-b-c-d or h-i-j-k. Because this task has been primarily used with adult samples used with

adult samples who have better understanding and quicker access to alphabet letters, the task

will be modified slightly to accommodate the age group of the current study. Firstly, to assist

the child subjects in understanding what was required, this task can be likened to picking out

a letter at random from a hat, then replacing it in the hat and picking out a letter again. Thus,
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 14

a given letter was as likely to be picked out again as any other letter. Then, each subject will

able be asked to write quickly write alphabet letters in sequential order to help them refresh

their memory of the alphabet letters. This task is assumed to inhibition because subjects are

required to actively suppress their dominant responses that would lead to well-learned

sequences to achieve what was required in the task (Baddeley, 1996). The index of inhibition

is calculated using the following formula: the number of correct unordered letters minus the

number of sequential letters, divided by the total number of letters named (Baddeley, 1996).

Memory updating task. The memory updating task used in the current study will be

adapted from Morris and Jones (1990). Firstly, strings of unrelated consonants will be

presented to the subjects. They will be asked to recall the four or six last items of each string.

The length of the strings varies unpredictably, and could be as many items as subjects are

asked to recall, or 2, 4, or 6 items longer. The latter conditions required a shift in the rehearsal

frame. For example, if the number of items required to be remembered was four, a six items

string would demand that the subject drop the first two item and begin the rehearsal process

again from the third. If the subject successfully recalled all 4 items correctly, that would

constitute a correct response. The index of updating ability would be the number of correct

responses out of 15 trials in a round. Using secondary tasks that interfere with the function of

the phonological loop, Morris and Jones (1990) found evidence that this memory updating is

not characteristic of the phonological loop, but is a function of the central executive (see also;

Van der Linden et al., 1994; Lehto, 1995). Thus, performance on this updating task reflects

updating capacity of the CE system and not the capacity of phonological loop.

Video game control task. The phonological-only training group will be playing the

“Idiom’s King” video game on the computers as a control task (in contrast to CE training

tasks in the other 2 phonological + CE training groups). This task is modified loosely based

on the same task described in Yang, Peng, Zhang, & Mo (2017). The game will require the
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 15

player to quickly and accurately choose the word that completes an idiom from four options

displayed on the screen. The difficulty level is interactively adjusted. When the correct

answer was selected, the difficulty will be increased in terms of response time in the

subsequent trial, which means the time provided for choosing the next word will be shortened

by 1s (the original time is 15s per question) until the minimum response time of 5s is reached.

If the incorrect answer was selected, the difficulty level will be decreased, and the time

provided is lengthened by 1s until the maximum response time of 20s is reached. There will

be 15 trials per round. According to the Yang, Peng, Zhang, & Mo (2017), this task mainly

trains the reaction time of the subjects, and therefore it should not interfere with the effects of

other WM training tasks.

Procedures

Pre-test procedures. After the parents agreed to participate in the current study, they

will be asked to fill in the demographics form. Based on the results of the demographic form,

those parents whose child met either one or both of the exclusion criteria will be briefed and

thanked for their willingness to participate in the study. Next, to examine if the potential child

subjects (i.e those who did not meet the exclusion criteria) qualify for the current study

sample, WISC-IV, Morisson-McCall spelling test and IOTA reading test will be administered

(see the “sample” and “materials” sections for more information). To avoid fatigue in child

subjects, WISC-IV will be administered in one session, while Morrison-McCall spelling test

and IOTA reading test will be administered together in another session. If the child (1) score

an IQ score of 80 and above on WISC-IV; (2) scored below 16th percentile on Morrison-

McCall spelling test and IOTA reading test, they will be invited to proceed to the WM

training. Otherwise, the parent and the child are briefed and thanked for their participation in

the study.
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 16

WM Training procedures. The WM training program will run for 4 weeks, with the

frequency of 3 individual sessions per week. Each session will last for about 30 minutes.

Such frequency is estimated to be intensive enough and yet will not impose a strain on the

subjects and cause disruption to their existing routines. Before the initiation of the WM

training, each subject will be randomly assigned to one of the four training groups using the

Random Allocation Computer Software (Saghaei, 2004). During the WM training session,

the child subjects will perform different combinations of WM training tasks, according to

their assigned training group. The phonological only group will perform the single phonology

n-back task plus the video game control task. The phonological + double span group will

perform the single phonology n-back task plus the double span task. The phonological +

updating group will perform the single phonology n-back task plus the memory updating task.

Lastly, the phonological + inhibition group will perform the single phonology n-back task

plus the random generation task. Tasks are presented in a fixed order for all training groups:

the phonological task is always presented first, followed by the CE task.

Post-test procedures. After the subjects completed the last session of the 4-week

WM trainings, they will be presented with the Morrison-McCall spelling test and IOTA

reading test again as post-test. Both tests will be conducted in the same session, with

Morrison-McCall spelling test being conducted first followed by the IOTA reading test. Each

subject will be tested individually.

Proposed Data Analysis

To answer research question 1, two one-way repeated measure analyses of variance

(ANOVA) need to be carried out. The effect of WM training modules are tested by

comparing the Morrison-McCall and IOTA outcome scores at post-test (time 2: T2) to initial

scores at pre-test (time 1: T1), controlling for age and gender. If a main effect is significant,

post-hoc analyses can be carried out to determine which of the 4 training modules is the most
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 17

effective in terms of improving reading and spelling performance. If either one of the WM

training modules with an additional CE training component surpassed the effectiveness of the

module with only phonological training component, then it can be concluded that executive

processing model is true. Ultimately, it can be concluded that reading/spelling difficulties in

literacy disorder are associated with phonological loop deficits plus additional CE deficits. If

the opposite is true, then it can be concluded that the phonological processing model is true,

and that WM impairments underlying reading/spelling difficulties in literacy disorder are

confined to the phonological loop.

To answer research question 2, a one-way repeated measure analyses of variance

(ANOVA) needs to be carried out. The effect of three WM training modules with CE training

components are tested by comparing the Morrison-McCall and IOTA outcome scores at post-

test (time 2: T2) to initial scores at pre-test (time 1: T1), controlling for age and gender. If a

main effect is significant, post-hoc analyses can be carried out to determine which of the 3

training modules is the most effective in terms of improving reading and spelling

performance. Several statistical results need to be obtained to confirm that inhibition and/or

updating mediates the relationship between WM and literacy abilities. Firstly, the

reading/spelling outcome scores of the phonological + updating group and/or phonological +

inhibition group should show significant improvement pre-test to post-test, as this would

suggest that training modules including updating/inhibition training is effective in improving

reading/spelling abilities in subjects with literacy disorders. Next, the reading/spelling

outcome scores of the phonological + double span group should not show significant

improvement from pre-test to post-test, as this would suggest that WM training module

employing CE coordination training is equally effective as other WM training modules

employing CE updating/inhibition training. Such result would directly oppose the earlier

conjecture proposed to explain why previous WM training targeting to improve CE

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 18

coordinative functioning did not successfully remediate reading and spelling difficulties in

children with literacy disorders. It was suggested in the introduction that previous studies did

not successfully remediate reading and spelling difficulties in children with literacy disorders

by improving CE coordinative functioning, as it is not the CE coordinative component that is

faulty; it is one of the two lower level CE subsystems, inhibition and updating, that are faulty

instead.
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 19

References
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short‐

term and working memory in children: Are they separable?. Child development, 77(6),

1698-1716.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.

Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology Section A, 49(1), 5-28.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In Psychology of learning and

motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P.

Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and

executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bejar, I. I. (1984). Educational diagnostic assessment. Journal of Educational

Measurement, 21(2), 175-189.

Brunswick, N., Martin, G. N., & Rippon, G. (2012). Early cognitive profiles of emergent

readers: A longitudinal study. Journal of experimental child psychology, 111(2), 268-

285.

Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children's mathematics

ability: Inhibition, switching, and working memory. Developmental

neuropsychology, 19(3), 273-293.

Chiappe, P., Siegel, L. S., & Hasher, L. (2000). Working memory, inhibitory control, and

reading disability. Memory & cognition, 28(1), 8-17.

Clegg, J., Hollis, C., Mawhood, L., & Rutter, M. (2005). Developmental language disorders–

a follow‐up in later adult life. Cognitive, language and psychosocial

outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(2), 128-149.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 20

Dahlin, K. I. (2011). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special

needs. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 479-491.

De Jong, P. F. (2006). Understanding normal and impaired reading development: A working

memory perspective. Working memory and education (ed Pickering, S), pp. 33–60.

San Diego, CA: Academic press.

Ericcson, K. A., Chase, W. G., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory

skill. Science, 208(4448), 1181-1182.

Felsenfeld, S., Broen, P. A., & McGue, M. (1994). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a

history of moderate phonological disorder: Educational and occupational

results. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37(6), 1341-1353.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (Eds.) (2011) Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment

System: Years K-2, Levels AN. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann,

Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, F. A. & Shaywitz, S. E.

(2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement

scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Phonological working memory: A critical

building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition?. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(3), 259.

Howes, N. L., Bigler, E. D., Burlingame, G. M., & Lawson, J. S. (2003). Memory

performance of children with dyslexia: A comparative analysis of theoretical

perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 230-246.

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of

the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory, 18(4), 394-412.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 21

Jeffries, S., & Everatt, J. (2004). Working memory: Its role in dyslexia and other specific

learning difficulties. Dyslexia: An International Journal Of Research And Practice,

10(3), 196-214. doi:10.1002/dys.278

Kaufman, A. S., Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2006). Test review:

Wechsler intelligence scale for children, (WISC-IV). Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment, 24(3), 278-295.

Kibby, M. Y., Marks, W., Morgan, S., & Long, C. J. (2004). Specific impairment in

developmental reading disabilities: A working memory approach. Journal of learning

disabilities, 37(4), 349-363.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., & Muller, K. E. (1988). Variable reduction and factor

analysis. In D. G. Kleinbaum, L. Kupper, A. Nizam & E. Rosenberg (Eds.), Applied

regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston, MA.

Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic

numerical capacities: A study of 8-9-year-old students. Cognition, 93(2), 99-125.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.004.

Landerl, K., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., & Willburger, E. (2009). Dyslexia and dyscalculia:

Two learning disorders with different cognitive profiles. Journal of experimental

child psychology, 103(3), 309-324.

Lehto, J. (1995). Working memory and school achievement in the ninth form. Educational

Psychology, 15(3), 271-281.

Lewis, C., Hitch, G. J., & Walker, P. (1994). The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties

and specific reading difficulties in 9‐to 10‐year‐old boys and girls. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 283-292.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 22

Logie, R., & Pearson, D. G. (1997). The inner eye and the inner scribe of visuo-spatial

working memory: Evidence from developmental fractionation. European Journal of

cognitive psychology, 9(3), 241-257.

Lundberg, I. (1994). Reading difficulties can be predicted and prevented: A Scandinavian

perspective on phonological awareness and reading. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling

(Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 180-199). Philadelphia, PA, US:

Whurr Publishers.

Lyytinen, H., Erskine, J., Tolvanen, A., Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A. M., & Lyytinen, P. (2006).

Trajectories of reading development: A follow-up from birth to school age of children

with and without risk for dyslexia. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 514-546.

Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-

analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270-291.

Miles, T. R., Haslum, M. N., & Wheeler, T. J. (1998). Gender ratio in dyslexia. Annals of

Dyslexia, 48(1), 27-55.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.

(2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to

complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology, 41(1),

49-100.

Monroe, M. (1932). Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of

the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition (pp. 93 – 148). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Ltd.
WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 23

Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: The role of the

central executive. British journal of psychology, 81(2), 111-121.

Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in

reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431.

Palmer, S. (2000). Phonological recoding deficit in working memory of dyslexic

teenagers. Journal of Research in reading, 23(1), 28-40.

Pasolunghi, M. C., Cornoldi, C., & De Liberto, S. (1999). Working memory and intrusions of

irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers. Memory &

Cognition, 27(5), 779-790.

Pickering, S. J. (2006a). Working memory and education. San Diego, CA: Academic press.

Pickering S. J. (2006b) Working memory in dyslexia. In: Working Memory and

Neurodevelopmental Disorders (eds T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole), pp. 7–40.

Psychology Press, Hove.

Pickering, S. J., Gathercole, S. E., Hall, M., & Lloyd, S. A. (2001). Development of memory

for pattern and path: Further evidence for the fractionation of visuo-spatial

memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 54(2), 397-

420.

Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., & Vauras, M. (1999). Who benefits from training in linguistic

awareness in the first grade, and what components show training effects? Journal of

learning disabilities, 32(5), 437-446.

Putnam, F. W. (2006). The impact of trauma on child development. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal, 57(1), 1-11.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 24

Ramus, F., & Ahissar, M. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: The difficulties of interpreting

poor performance, and the importance of normal performance. Cognitive

Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 104–122.

Records, N. L., Tomblin, J. B., & Freese, P. R. (1992). The quality of life of young adults

with histories of specific language impairment. American Journal of Speech-

Language Pathology, 1(2), 44-53.

Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Wiemers, E. A., Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2015). What’s

working in working memory training? An educational perspective. Educational

Psychology Review, 27(4), 617-633.

Rice, M. L., Buchanan, A. L., Siberry, G. K., Malee, K. M., Zeldow, B., Frederick, T., ... &

Torre III, P. (2012). Language impairment in children perinatally infected with HIV

compared to children who were HIV-exposed and uninfected. Journal of

Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 33(2), 112.

Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., ... &

Carroll, J. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability: new findings

from 4 epidemiological studies. Jama, 291(16), 2007-2012.

Saghaei, M. (2004). Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials. BMC

medical research methodology, 4(1), 26.

Schuchardt, K., Maehler, C., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). Working memory deficits in children

with specific learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(6), 514-523.

Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training

effective?. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 628-654.

Smith-Spark, J. H., & Fisk, J. E. (2007). Working memory functioning in developmental

dyslexia. Memory, 15(1), 34-56.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 25

Smith-Spark, J., Fisk, J., Fawcett, A., & Nicolson, R. (2003). Investigating the central

executive in adult dyslexics: Evidence from phonological and visuospatial working

memory performance. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 567-587.

Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Stothard, S. E., Chipchase, B., & Kaplan, C. (2006).

Psychosocial outcomes at 15 years of children with a preschool history of speech‐

language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(8), 759-765.

St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements

in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745-759.

Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to

make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly,

28, 103-106.

Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V., Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A. (1998).

Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech,

Language, and Hearing Research, 41(2), 407-418.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading comprehension and working memory in learning-disabled

readers: Is the phonological loop more important than the executive system?. Journal

of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(1), 1-31.

Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem solving: A

longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology,

103(4), 821-837.

Swanson H. L. (2006) Working memory and reading disabilities: both phonological and

executive processing deficits are important. In: Working Memory and

Neurodevelopmental Disorders (eds T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole), pp. 59–88.

Psychology Press, Hove.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 26

Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word

recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers:

Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 128.

Swanson, H. L., & Ashbaker, M. H. (2000). Working memory, short-term memory, speech

rate, word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: does

the executive system have a role? 1. Intelligence, 28(1), 1-30.

Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working

memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for

serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 471.

Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children's working

memory and writing skill. Journal of experimental child psychology, 63(2), 358-385.

Swanson, H. L., Orosco, M. J., Lussier, C. M., Gerber, M. M., & Guzman-Orth, D. A. (2011).

The influence of working memory and phonological processing on English language

learner children's bilingual reading and language acquisition. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 103(4), 838.

Towse, J. N., & Houston‐Price, C. M. (2001). Combining representations in working memory:

A brief report. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(3), 319-324.

Van der Linden, M ., Bre dart, S., & Beerten, A. (1994). Age-related differences in

updating working memory. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 145-152.

Vellutino, F. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2007). Developmental dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C.

Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 362–378). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Ltd.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading

disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?. Journal of child

psychology and psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40.

WORKING MEMORY AND LITERACY 27

Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Boada, R., Ogline, J. S., Tunick, R. A., Chhabildas, N. A.,

& Olson, R. K. (2001). A comparison of the cognitive deficits in reading disability

and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 110(1),

157-172.

Yang, J., Peng, J., Zhang, D., Zheng, L., & Mo, L. (2017). Specific effects of working

memory training on the reading skills of Chinese children with developmental

dyslexia. PloS one, 12(11), e0186114.