Rapid serial naming is a unique predictor of spelling in children.(Report)

A great deal of research shows that average reading L ability and below-average reading ability are best predicted by the somewhat independent effects of phonologically based decoding and rapid naming (Compton, DeFries, & Olson, 2001; Cornwall, 1992; Kirby, Parilla, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Savage et al., 2005; Strattman & Hodson, 2005; Wolf & Bowers, 1999; Wolf & O'Brien, 2001). Rapid automatic naming (RAN) is known to distinguish average readers from below-average readers but not average readers from above-average readers (Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998; Savage et al., 2005). RAN--reading associations are also highly specific to reading fluency (Bowers, 1993; Levy, Abello, & Lyschynchuk, 1997; Savage & Frederickson, 2005; Young & Bowers, 1995).

Research on RAN and Spelling

In contrast to the well-developed literature on RAN and reading, we first argue in this article that (a) relatively less attention has been directed toward RAN--spelling associations (e.g., Sunseth & Bowers, 2002). In addition, we make two further claims: (b) Although there is mixed data in this domain, at least some evidence suggests that skilled spelling represents the use of quite distinct RAN skills that may differ in quality and extent to those in reading, and (c) notwithstanding this, all of the existing studies on RAN in spelling are confounded by the methodological issues of the use of nonword reading tasks (that reflect the application of grapheme-to-phoneme rules) rather than nonword spelling (that reflect the application of phoneme-to-grapheme rules). Furthermore, there are no studies exploring individual differences in RAN and spelling ability. We therefore sought to clarify the nature of RAN--spelling associations here. Each of the three points raised above are discussed in detail below.

Theoretical Accounts Predicting Differential RAN--Spelling and RAN--Reading Associations

In current models, RAN is seen as a measure of an underlying structure or timing congruence in the central nervous system that underlies the capacity to accurately and efficiently store detailed orthographic information about words. This structure is seen as being somewhat independent of the structures used for phonological processing (e.g., Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, 2000). In one sense, therefore, RAN reflects very basic neurological processes that might be assumed to apply equally to reading as to spelling. One popular current idea is that the additional impact of RAN on literacy, above and beyond the known effects of phonological abilities, reflects the specific role of RAN in the establishment and use of fully specified, word-specific orthographic representations (Bowers, Sunseth, & Golden, 1999; Manis, Doi, & Bhada, 2000; Manis & Freedman, 2001; Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002; Wolf et al., 2002). Such patterns are assumed to apply to below-average readers and to below-average spellers.

There are at least four arguments that motivate an exploration of distinct RAN--spelling associations. The first theoretical reason concerns the purported independence of RAN and phonological processing in the current models. Previous research strongly suggests that the application of phonological processing is central to success in spelling as well as in reading acquisition (e.g., Cataldo & Ellis, 1988; Cornwall, 1992; Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Stage & Wagner, 1992; Treiman, 1993). Indeed, explicit phonological processes are often seen as being even more important in spelling development than in reading development (e.g., Frith, 1985; Sunseth & Bowers, 2002). At a general level then, if phonological processes are particularly dominant in spelling, then this might have important knock-on effects, for example, attenuating the RAN--spelling relationship compared to the RAN--reading relationship.

A second reason for expecting different RAN--reading and RAN--spelling relationships is that different phonological and orthographic processes might operate at the same point in time in an individual's spelling and reading development. For example, in traditional stage models of literacy acquisition (e.g., Frith, 1980, 1985), a discrepancy may be found between the conscious phonologically driven phonological and analytic strategies used for early word spelling in contrast to the more implicit, holistic, or word-specific orthographic approaches that may initially be deployed at the same point in an individual's early reading development (e.g., Bryant & Bradley, 1985; Frith, 1980, 1985; Shanahan, 1984; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; for a different view, see Fletcher-Flinn, Shankweiler, & Frost, 2004). In Frith's classic account, for example, it is assumed that below-average readers and spellers are "arrested" at the logographic stage. Frith argues that developmental dyslexics may develop some very basic sight vocabulary for reading but are unable to use decoding processes to make significant progress in spelling. Thus, it may be that RAN is more closely associated with reading than with spelling among developmental dyslexics.