Scientific Studies of Reading

ISSN: 1088-8438 (Print) 1532-799X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hssr20

An Examination of an Intervention Program

Designed to Enhance Reading and Spelling
Through the Training of Morphological
Decomposition in Word Recognition

Irit Bar-Kochva

To cite this article: Irit Bar-Kochva (2016) An Examination of an Intervention Program Designed
to Enhance Reading and Spelling Through the Training of Morphological Decomposition in Word
Recognition, Scientific Studies of Reading, 20:2, 163-172, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1108321

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1108321

Published online: 18 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 345

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hssr20
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING
2016, VOL. 20, NO. 2, 163–172
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1108321

An Examination of an Intervention Program Designed to Enhance

Reading and Spelling Through the Training of Morphological
Decomposition in Word Recognition
Irit Bar-Kochva
University of Haifa, Goethe University, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)

ABSTRACT
Morphological analysis of words has been shown to characterize skilled
reading. A manipulation on the presentation of words, designed to encou-
rage this process, was examined in dyslexic readers. Fifty-eight Hebrew-
speaking university students with dyslexia were divided into three groups.
One underwent a very short-term morpheme-based training, consisting of a
time-restricted exposure to the root morphemes of words presented in a
lexical decision task. The rest of the words’ letters remained on screen until
a response. Another group received a control training consisting of the
same procedure, except that the presentation of a nonmorphological
orthographic unit was manipulated. Two untrained control groups, of dys-
lexic readers and of typical readers (n = 20), received pre- and posttest
measures without training. The results suggest modest but positive effects
on reading and spelling following the morpheme-based training, thereby
suggesting that the morphological manipulation examined should be inte-
grated in more intensive trainings.

Morphological decomposition of words was found to constitute a central process of skilled reading
(Rueckl, 2010; Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2003). However, findings are less consistent in studies of
dyslexic readers (e.g., Elbro & Arnbak, 1996; Leikin & Even-Zur, 2006; Quemart & Casalis, 2013;
Schiff & Raveh, 2007; Verhoeven & Schreuder, 2011; but see Deacon, Parrila, & Kirby, 2006), which
may indicate that they do not apply morphological analysis as effectively, or to the same extent as
typical readers do.
Studies on morphological training have shown positive effects on literacy skills in different
languages, for example, English, Danish, Greek, Dutch, and Norwegian (Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon,
2010; Elbro & Arnbak, 1996; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013; Nunes, Bryant, & Olsson, 2003; Tsesmeli,
Douvalis, & Kyrou, 2011; Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2009). Training in those studies focused on explicit
instruction of morphological structures and on familiarity with specific morphemes. In the current
study, however, a training program was designed to enhance the actual process of morphological
decomposition in word recognition by imposing a demand of extracting the core morpheme in a
visually presented word. This was carried out by limiting its duration of presentation in a compu-
terized reading task. Such a program may be more accessible to trainees than explicit instruction, as
it does not require the mediation of a tutor.
Participants were adult dyslexic readers of Hebrew. The basic morphological components of
Hebrew are the Semitic root and pattern. The root consists of three to four consonants carrying the
core meaning of the word. The patterns include consonants and vowels, classifying words into types
of verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Although some patterns violate the visual sequence of the root

CONTACT Irit Bar-Kochva bar-kochva@dipf.de German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF),
Schloßstraße 29, 60486 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
© 2016 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
164 I. BAR-KOCHVA

letters, other do not. For example, in the word misx(a)k (“game”), the root letters sxk are integrated
into the pattern miCC(a)C; however, the vowel a (which is part of the pattern) is not represented
with a letter, and therefore the sequence of the root letters is maintained. However, in the word sipur
(“story”), the root consonants spr are integrated into a pattern that includes vowel letters CiCuC,
which violate the sequence of the root letters. Nevertheless, in both structures, the principal
morphological unit found to be extracted is the root rather than the pattern (at least in the case of
nouns; Deutsch, Frost, & Forster, 1998). Consequently, the training consisted of a computerized
word-reading task, in which the duration of presentation of the root was manipulated (by deleting all
of its letters at the same time), whereas the letters of the pattern remained on screen until response.
In view of differences in the morphological processing of Hebrew nouns and verbs (Deutsch et al.,
1998), only nouns were included in the current training.
Imposing time-constraints on reading may in itself enhance performance (Breznitz, 2006), rather
than the type of orthographic unit manipulated. In an attempt to disentangle these two factors, the
manipulation of roots was contrasted with the manipulation of nonmorphological units.
It was hypothesized that restricting the duration of presentation of the root would impose
demands for its fast extraction. Considering that the root guides lexical access in word reading
(Frost, Kugler, Deutsch, & Forster, 2005), this training was expected to improve lexical access,
leading to positive effects on reading and spelling. As the program focused on the training of a
process of reading rather than on the familiarity with specific items, improvement in untrained
material was the focus of this study.

Methods
Participants
Participants were university and college students, native speakers of Hebrew. Fifty-eight participants
were diagnosed with developmental dyslexia, and 20 were typical readers. To confirm diagnosis,
ability tests, commonly used in the diagnosis of dyslexia in adult Hebrew readers, were administered
(e.g., Breznitz & Meyler, 2005). The typical readers showed an advantage in all tests, except in
general ability (Table1).
Twenty-one dyslexic participants received the morpheme-based training, and 20 others under-
went the control training (each group included six men). Another group of dyslexic readers (n = 17,
six men) and the typical readers (n = 20, five men) were tested without training in order to examine
retesting effects and in order to evaluate performance of dyslexic readers relative to skilled readers.
The assignment of participants into one of the two training groups was random (with the exception
of the matching of gender). The other control groups were added later on, as their purpose was not
initially taken into account. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (approval
number 090/09).

Materials
Ability measures
Visual-spatial and verbal general ability were tested using the Block Design and the Similarities tests
(Wechsler, 1997). Rapid Naming was tested with a table of 50 letters/objects, which participants
named as quickly as possible (Breznitz, 2005). Phonemic segmentation and omission (Shatil, 2001)
were tested by asking participants to pronounce each phoneme composing pseudowords and to
pronounce pseudowords without a specific phoneme. Reading efficiency was examined using the
Words per Minute (Shatil, 1997a) and the Pseudowords per Minute (Shatil, 1997b) tests, in which
participants were asked to read as many items as they could within 1 min.
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 165

Table 1. Ability measures of the four groups tested and group effects in ANOVA analyses.
a. DR b. DR
morpheme control c. DR no d. TR no Group
training training training training effects
M SD M SD M SD M SD F(3, 73) p Post hoc comparisons
Age in years 24.85 3.00 25.30 3.26 25.87 2.94 25.26 2.64 .353 .787
Block design (standard 11.85 3.25 11.40 2.66 12.00 3.28 12.47 3.03 .410 .746
score)
Similarities (standard 11.55 1.67 11.40 1.35 12.13 2.13 12.32 1.38 1.39 .250
score)
RAN letters time (in 28.15 5.89 27.51 6.04 27.23 7.73 20.61 3.13 6.96 .000 d < a,b,c (p < .01 in all
seconds) comparisons)
RAN objects time (in 45.92 8.83 43.86 11.17 44.56 7.37 31.35 6.83 11.21 .000 d < a,b,c (p < .001 in
seconds) all comparisons)
Phonemic segmentation 11.70 4.47 11.45 4.85 10.88 5.23 15.11 1.79 3.72 .015 d > c (p = .03)a
(correct out of 16)
Phoneme omission 18.80 8.22 18.70 7.87 17.47 9.07 24.58 1.02 3.58 .018 d > c (p = .03)a
(correct out of 25)
Words per minute 65.10 17.35 64.25 18.69 65.38 19.09 115.32 15.82 38.27 .000 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in
all comparisons)
Pseudowords per minute 25.25 11.08 28.33 10.12 25.50 10.95 58.32 12.75 37.79 .000 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in
all comparisons)
Note. Group differences were examined using univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses with group as a between-
participant factor, followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparisons. The achievements of the three groups of dyslexic readers did
not differ significantly in any of the ability tests. TR = typical readers; DR = dyslexic readers; a = morpheme-based training;
b = control training; c = dyslexic readers no training; d = typical readers no training; RAN = rapid automatized naming.
a
The differences between the typical readers and the trained dyslexics (Groups a and b) in the phonemic segmentation and
omission tasks approached significance (p < .09 in both comparisons and tests).

Tests administered before and after training

Spelling. Three parallel lists of untrained items (of different semantic categories, including 27 words
each) and three parallel lists of trained items (including 39 nouns each) were dictated. The lists were
matched for means of word-frequency (according to Frost & Plaut, 2001: 13.96–14.37 appearances in
1 million for untrained items and 9.25–10.38 appearances for trained items), word length (4.66–4.71
and 4.74–4.97 letters for untrained and trained items, respectively), and number of homophonic
letters per word (2.26 in all lists of untrained items and 1.82 in all lists of trained items).

Oral word reading. Three parallel lists were compiled, each including 66 words of different
semantic categories. The lists were matched for means of word length (4.72–4.91 letters in a
word), mean frequency (39.46–40.67 appearances in 1 million, Frost & Plaut, 2001), and number
of ambiguous words (15 words per list).

Oral text reading (The Center of Psychometric Tests, 1994). Three parallel informative texts were
presented, matched for level of difficulty (Greenberg, 2008). The texts included 209 to 261 words.

Lexical decision (Bar-Kochva & Breznitz, 2012). Participants were asked to silently read 44 words
(infrequent to frequent nouns, three to five letters in length) and 44 pseudowords presented on a
computer screen, and to decide whether each stimulus is a real or an invented word (by pressing
different keys on the keyboard). Pseudowords were created by integrating pseudo-roots into real
morphological patterns.

Reading comprehension (The Center of Psychometric Tests, 1994). Three parallel informative texts,
matched for level of difficulty, were presented (Greenberg, 2008). The texts included 232 to 268
words followed by 17 questions. Participants were instructed to read the texts silently.
166 I. BAR-KOCHVA

None of these tests included words that appeared in training (except for spelling of trained items).
Time and accuracy were measured in the reading tests, and accuracy was measured in the spelling
tests. A fluency measure (words read correctly per minute) was further calculated for the oral
reading tests.

Training
Two computerized trainings were developed, consisting of blocks of lexical decision. Participants
were asked to quickly read each word (silently) and to press one key if a real word was presented and
a different key if an invented word was presented. The two programs included the same items: 480
bimorphemic nouns of varying frequencies, composed of 480 different three-letter roots embedded
in 24 different patterns. Pseudowords were created by integrating pseudoroots into the real patterns.
Each item appeared only twice in training.
In the morpheme-based training, the presentation of the root of each word (pseudoroots in the
case of pseudowords) was restricted in time, whereas the letters of the pattern and dashes appearing
instead of the root letters remained on screen until response. In the control training the procedure
was the same, except that the presentation of a nonmorphological unit (two letters from the root and
one from the pattern) was restricted in time. In both programs, a blank screen (appearing for
1,000 ms) followed by a mask (asterisks appearing for 500 ms) separated the stimuli.
The stimuli were presented in blocks of 20 items (words or pseudowords), which shared the same
morphological pattern. As the location of the root letters stayed the same within each pattern, the
location of the letters manipulated in the control training was also consistent within each block. In
Figure 1 an example of one block is presented.
The duration of presentation of the manipulated units was set individually in order to take into account
variance between participants in reading rates (Breznitz, 2006). A mean per-letter reading rate was
calculated based on performance in the lexical decision task (Bar-Kochva & Breznitz, 2012), presented
prior to training. The baseline duration was calculated by multiplying this rate by 3 (as each manipulated
unit included three letters). The presentation duration of the manipulated units in the first block was 15%
shorter and was further restricted by 4% per block, provided that accuracy stayed above 80%.

Procedure
Participants completed the pretraining tests (T1), and the first training session was administered
thereafter. On the following day, participants trained again, and after a break, posttests were
administered (T2). One to 3 days after training, a short postexamination was administered (T3).
The three matched versions of tests were counterbalanced across participants and testing points.
Participants were asked to work quickly and accurately in all tests and training tasks. A session
including training and testing lasted about 2 hr, of which training lasted about 25 min.

Results
The means and standard deviations of the reading and spelling tests across the testing points appear in
Table 2. Performance of the groups was analyzed using 4 × 3 repeated measure analyses of variance
(ANOVA), with group (including all four groups) as a between-participant factor and testing time
(three levels) as a within-participant factor, followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparisons (Table 3). To
further examine, whether the two trainings differed from one another, additional 2 × 3 repeated
measure ANOVAs were carried out, with group as a between-participant factor, including only the
two trained groups. The within-participant factor was testing time (three levels), and the analyses were
followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparisons (Table 4). In the following measures, significant or near
significant interactions were found between group and testing time in one or both of these analyses.
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 167

Figure 1. Examples of words presented in one block of the morpheme-based and the control training programs.
Note. The two trainings consisted of a lexical decision task, in which the presentation of three letters of a word was restricted in
time—the root letters in the morpheme-based training and three letters that do not constitute a morpheme in the control
training. The rest of the letters in each word remained on screen until response. The morphological patterns of the items (words
and pseudowords) in the two programs were consistent within a block but differed between blocks.

Table 2. Performance in the reading and spelling tests by testing time and group.
DR morpheme DR control
training training DR no training TR no training
Test Testing time M SD M SD M SD M SD
Spelling untrained words % accuracy T1 78.52 18.60 77.22 15.21 80.32 13.27 98.33 1.89
T2 83.39 14.97 79.07 16.31 77.08 15.45 96.30 5.64
T3 79.19 17.35 80.74 12.81 80.56 12.59 96.11 3.50
Spelling trained words % accuracy T1 81.20 12.44 83.33 10.54 84.46 10.55 97.56 3.17
T2 88.52 9.65 87.18 8.73 81.73 12.36 97.05 3.14
T3 89.01 12.11 86.92 9.91 83.08 9.24 97.18 3.21
Oral word reading % accuracy T1 93.77 4.06 94.54 2.89 92.50 9.43 99.15 1.62
T2 96.92 2.96 94.77 4.33 92.98 10.53 98.92 1.23
T3 96.19 3.43 95.46 5.29 93.37 9.62 99.38 1.53
Oral word reading fluency (words per minute) T1 59.97 18.01 63.03 18.26 57.68 14.89 112.13 17.30
T2 67.01 17.26 67.59 23.16 61.19 19.36 116.33 22.52
T3 67.11 18.60 68.42 22.59 62.98 18.96 115.53 16.92
Oral text reading % accuracy T1 96.96 3.07 97.37 2.12 96.34 5.84 99.45 0.66
T2 98.19 1.42 96.79 2.52 96.35 4.53 99.48 0.63
(Continued )
168 I. BAR-KOCHVA

Table 2. (Continued).
DR morpheme DR control
training training DR no training TR no training
Test Testing time M SD M SD M SD M SD
T3 98.00 1.23 96.76 2.27 96.58 5.76 99.47 0.85
Oral text reading fluency (words per minute) T1 95.25 24.17 100.38 23.43 92.97 23.14 140.83 14.92
T2 101.45 23.22 95.98 25.01 94.12 21.04 140.29 17.02
T3 99.51 20.63 97.88 25.06 91.52 19.60 138.69 16.49
Word reading % accuracy in LD T1 95.45 3.89 97.44 2.33 95.31 5.84 98.75 1.37
T2 93.89 3.49 94.60 4.14 94.89 7.63 97.16 3.68
T3 95.91 3.35 94.46 3.32 95.17 3.88 96.17 4.22
Word reading RT in LD (ms) T1 982.32 377.67 1001.12 315.72 943.65 213.77 642.25 82.94
T2 725.53 285.88 816.47 246.16 944.92 241.36 598.09 84.04
T3 789.90 342.03 877.13 280.69 932.78 288.99 619.77 113.82
Comprehension % accuracy T1 77.87 12.18 78.53 11.65 78.31 10.95 80.29 11.65
T2 75.35 13.87 78.53 8.38 73.53 12.99 79.71 11.37
T3 76.19 12.82 78.82 10.17 75.37 15.31 83.82 9.33
Note. Testing time = T (1–3); TR = typical readers; DR = dyslexic readers; LD = lexical decision; RT = response times.

Table 3. Effects of testing time, group, and their interactions in measures of reading and spelling examined in 4 × 3 repeated
measure ANOVA analyses (including all groups).
Measure Effects F p df ηp2 Post hoc comparisons, p
Spelling untrained words Testing time .204 .815 2,148 .003
Testing time × Group 2.80 .013 6,148 .102
Group 10.03 .000 3,74 .289 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in all comparisons)
Spelling trained words Testing time 5.47 .005 2,148 .069 T3 >T1 (p < .001); T2>T1 (p = .07)
Testing time × Group 5.28 .000 6,148 .176
Group 10.55 .000 3,74 .299 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in all comparisons)
Oral word reading accuracy Testing time 4.08 .019 2,148 .052 T3>T1 (p = .04)
Testing time × Group 1.86 .090 6,148 .070
Group 5.00 .003 3,74 .169 d > b (p = .05); d > c (p = .002)a
Oral word reading fluency Testing time 10.05 .000 2,148 .120 T2>T1 (p = .004); T3>T1 (p < .001)
Testing time × Group .294 .939 6,148 .012
Group 39.56 .000 3,74 .616 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in all comparisons)
Oral text reading accuracy Testing time .482 .619 2,148 .006
Testing time × Group 2.36 .030 6,148 .087
Group 4.22 .008 3,74 .146 d > b (p = .04); d > c (p = .01)
Oral text reading fluency Testing time .488 .615 2,148 .007
Testing time × Group 2.53 .023 6,148 .093
Group 21.79 .000 3,74 .469 d > a,b,c (p < .001 in all comparisons)
Word reading accuracy in LD Testing time 1.06 .351 2,148 .016
Testing time × Group 1.16 .332 6,148 .052
Group 1.01 .392 3,74 .045
Word reading RT in LD Testing time 11.73 .000 2,148 .159 T2<T1 (p < .001); T3<T1 (p = .009)
Testing time × Group 2.97 .010 6,148 .126
Group 7.65 .001 3,74 .270 d < a,b (p < .05 in both comparisons);
d < c (p < .001)
Comprehension Testing time .963 .384 2,148 .013
Testing time × Group .518 .794 6,148 .021
Group 1.55 .207 3,74 .059
Note. Effects were examined using repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group (four levels) as a between-
participant factor and testing time (three levels) as a within-participant factor, followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparisons.
a = Morpheme-based training; b = control training; c = dyslexic readers no training; d = typical readers no training; testing
time = T(1–3); LD = lexical decision; RT = response times.
a
The comparison between group d and group a was insignificant (p = .1).

Spelling of untrained items. The 4 × 3 ANOVA indicated a significant interaction (p = .013), and
the 2 × 3 ANOVA indicated a near significant interaction (p = .060). The means suggest small
improvements in the control training group across the three testing points and a larger improvement
of the morpheme-based training group, but only from T1 to T2.
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 169

Table 4. Effects of testing time, group, and their interactions in measures of reading and spelling examined in 2 × 3 repeated
measure ANOVA analyses (including only the trained groups).
Measure Effects F p df ηp2 Post hoc comparisons, p
Spelling untrained words Testing time 1.89 .158 2,78 .047
Testing time × Group 2.88 .060 2,78 .070
Group 0.39 .844 1,39 .001
Spelling trained words Testing time 18.52 .000 2,78 .322 T2,T3>T1 (p < .001 in all comparisons)
Testing time × Group 2.22 .101 2,78 .054
Group .019 .890 1,39 .000
Oral word reading accuracy Testing time 3.49 .035 2,78 .084 ns
Testing time × Group 2.56 .084 2,78 .063
Group .841 .365 1,39 .022
Oral word reading fluency Testing time 8.05 .001 2,78 .171 T2>T1 (p = .01); T3>T1 (p = .002)
Testing time × Group .270 .764 2,78 .007
Group .080 .778 1,39 .002
Oral text reading accuracy Testing time .529 .591 2,78 .013
Testing time × Group 4.92 .010 2,78 .112
Group 1.67 .203 1,39 .041
Oral text reading fluency Testing time .219 .804 2,78 .006
Testing time × Group 5.94 .004 2,78 .132
Group .008 .927 1,39 .000
Word reading accuracy in LD Testing time .997 .375 2,78 .032
Testing time × Group 1.07 .350 2,78 .034
Group .965 .334 1,39 .031
Word reading RT in LD Testing time 11.06 .000 2,78 .283 T2<T1 (p < .001); T3<T1 (p = .013)
Testing time × Group .456 .636 2,78 .016
Group .475 .496 1,39 .017
Comprehension Testing time .152 .859 2,78 .004
Testing time × Group .168 .846 2,78 .004
Group .733 .397 1,39 .018
Note. Effects were examined using repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group (two levels) as a between-
participant factor and testing time (three levels) as a within-participant factor, followed by Bonferroni pairwise comparisons.
Testing time = T(1–3); LD = lexical decision; RT = response times.

Spelling of trained items. The interaction in the 4 × 3 ANOVA was significant (p < .000) but not in
the 2 × 3 ANOVA (p = .101). The means suggest improvements across the testing points in both
trained groups. The post hoc comparisons in the 2 × 3 analysis indicate significant improvements
from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3.

Word reading accuracy. An interaction approaching significance was found in both 4 × 3 (p = .090)
and 2 × 3 (p = .084) ANOVAs. The means suggest that this tendency of interaction results from
some improvement following the morpheme-based training, from T1 to T2, and from T1 to T3.

Text reading accuracy. Significant interactions were obtained in the two analyses (p = .030 in the 4
× 3 ANOVA and p = .010 in the 2 × 3 ANOVA). The means suggest improvements only in the
group receiving the morpheme-based training, from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3.

Text reading fluency. Significant interactions were obtained in the 4 × 3 (p = .023) and 2 × 3
(p = .004) ANOVAs. The means suggest some fluctuation in performance in all groups. As far as the
two trained groups are concerned, whereas the mean fluency rates following the morpheme-based
training appear to have increased from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3, the means following the control
training suggest some decline across the testing points. Therefore, the interactions may represent the
two opposite tendencies of the two trained groups.

Word reading rate in lexical decision. The interaction was significant only in the 4 × 3 ANOVA
(p = .010). The post hoc comparisons following the main effect of testing time in both ANOVAs
170 I. BAR-KOCHVA

indicate improvements from T1 to T2 and from T1 to T3. The means suggest such improvements in
the two trained groups and in the typical readers.

Discussion
The expectations of the study were met to some extent. The results suggest some advantage of the
morpheme-based training over the control training in spelling of untrained items, although this
advantage may have been restricted to T2. Spelling of trained items, however, improved in both
trained groups, and the improvements appear to have been maintained in T3. The results do not
indicate a clear advantage of the morpheme-based training over the control training in this measure.
Spelling is a continuing difficulty for dyslexic adults, despite many years of print exposure (Bruck,
1992). Considering that the eventual goal of training is to show effects of transfer, the findings for
spelling of untrained items suggest a positive direction of effect of the morpheme-based training on
spelling ability, which may be further enhanced through more intensive training.
Accuracy in reading was very high in all groups, which is a common finding in dyslexic Hebrew
readers who are university students (e.g., Breznitz & Misra, 2003; Leikin & Even-Zur, 2006). At least
in the case of text reading, it seems unlikely that the texts were too easy, as they were taken from
university-level psychometric tests. Nevertheless, group effects were still evident. As even a few
mistakes may affect reading fluency and comprehension, the measure of accuracy deserves some
attention. The results suggest an advantage of the morpheme-based training in accuracy in text
reading over effects of retesting and of control training. A tendency of such an advantage is also
suggested in accuracy in word reading. At the same time, as accuracy was high to begin with, the
actual gains in the mean accuracy rates were small.
The results do not suggest, however, an advantage of the morpheme-based training in reading
fluency. Significant interactions between group and testing time were obtained in both ANOVAs (of
all groups and of the trained groups) in fluency in reading of text. Although the means suggest an
improvement only in the group receiving the morpheme-based training, they also indicate some
fluctuations in performance across the testing points in the other groups, which make the interac-
tions difficult to interpret. As far as performance in the same task trained is concerned (lexical
decision), the results suggest an improvement in both trained groups. Improvements in fluency in
reading of words could also not be specifically related to the morpheme-based training. Reading
fluency may have been particularly affected by the short-term training, as it may depend on the
attainment of automaticity in the trained processes. Also, morphological training in itself may not
suffice to induce considerable gains in a complex skill such as reading fluency (Breznitz, 2006). This
may also explain the lack of effects on another complex skill—comprehension.
Altogether, the results suggest small, and not always significant, improvements in literacy skills
following the morpheme-based training. It should also be acknowledged that the group receiving this
training did not approach the performance of the typical readers. Several reasons may explain these
rather modest results: As a first examination of the morpheme-based training, a small-scale study
was administered, in terms of training duration (~50 min), items trained (nouns), and number of
participants. In addition, the participants trained in this study were adults who have been applying
inefficient processes of reading for many years, which may be difficult to change. Nevertheless,
despite these suboptimal conditions, a general direction of improvement was obtained following the
morpheme-based training, even in measures of untrained items. This suggests that extending the
training protocol may bring about better results. The current results may then be regarded as
preliminary indication that the morphological manipulation offered here can be of general benefit
to reading and spelling of dyslexic readers.
Meta-analyses examining explicit morphological instruction vary in their reports on effect sizes
(Bowers et al., 2010; Goodwin & Ahn, 2013), presumably because of many methodological differences
between them. The current results may, however, show some convergence with reports by Goodwin and
Ahn (2013), who found a moderate effect of morphological instruction on spelling and a large effect on
 SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING 171

decoding. In the present study, the effect size of the analysis including only the two trained groups also
suggests a moderate effect on spelling (untrained items). At the same time, in spite of the suggested
medium effect on accuracy in text reading, the actual gains in mean accuracy rates following the
morpheme-based training were small. The question of whether the suggested larger effect of morpholo-
gical instruction than of the current morphological training on measures of reading accuracy has any
significance (beyond other possible factors, e.g., length of training, type of population trained, etc.) requires
further testing. Nevertheless, the current results are also in line with the previous reports on limited to no
effects of explicit morphological instruction on reading fluency and comprehension (Bowers et al., 2010;
Goodwin & Ahn, 2013). This may suggest that various methods of morphological training have positive
effects at least on certain aspects of literacy and that considerations such as accessibility of training (e.g.,
computerized trainings vs. tutored trainings) should guide the decision of which method to use.
An important question which arises is whether the suggested training is relevant to other
orthographies. It was suggested that morphological decomposition in word recognition may be
particularly pronounced in reading of morphologically rich languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic
(Frost, 2012; Rueckl, 2010). Nonetheless, as effects of morphological instruction were found in
languages with different morphological structures (e.g., Elbro & Arnbak, 1996; Tsesmeli &
Seymour, 2009), the effects of a training focusing on morphological analysis may not be restricted
to Hebrew. Studies directly comparing the same interventions in different orthographies are,
however, necessary in order to further clarify this point.

Acknowledgments
I am deeply indebted to Prof. Zvia Breznitz, who consistently encouraged me to develop new ideas
about reading intervention. Unfortunately, she passed away over the course of this work. I dedicate
the article to her blessed memory. I also wish to thank Prof. Ram Frost for his constructive
methodological advice during the planning of this work, and Pablo Saracusti for his dedicated
assistance in the programing of the training.

Funding
Support for this research was provided by the Edmond J. Safra Philanthropic Foundation. The
research was carried out in the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning
Disabilities, University of Haifa, Israel.

References
Bar-Kochva, I., & Breznitz, Z. (2012). Does the reading of different orthographies produce distinct brain activity
patterns? An ERP study. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36030. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00360
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A
systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. doi:10.3102/0034654309359353
Breznitz, Z. (2005). Brain activity during performance of naming tasks: Comparison between dyslexic and regular
readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 17–42. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_3
Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Breznitz, Z., & Meyler, A. (2003). Speed of lower-level auditory and visual processing as a basic factor in dyslexia:
Electrophysiological evidence. Brain and Language, 85, 166–184. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00513-8
Breznitz, Z., & Misra, M. (2003). Speed of processing of the visual–orthographic and auditory–phonological systems in
adult dyslexics: The contribution of “asynchrony” to word recognition deficits. Brain and Language, 85, 486–502.
doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00071-3
Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–886.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.874
Deacon, S. H., Parrila, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2006). Processing of derived forms in high-functioning dyslexics. Annals of
Dyslexia, 56, 103–128.
172 I. BAR-KOCHVA

Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental
lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1238–
1255.
Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 46, 209–240. doi:10.1007/BF02648177
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–279.
Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure:
Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.
Frost, R., & Plaut, D. (2001). The word-frequency database for printed Hebrew. Retrieved from word-freq.mscc.huji.ac.
il/index.htm.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy
outcomes for school-age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 257–285. doi:10.1080/10888438.2012.689791
Greenberg, E. (2008). The influence of a reading acceleration training on reading abilities among adult dyslexic readers:
Behavioral and electrophysiological measures (Unpublished dissertation). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Leikin, M., & Even-Zur, H. (2006). Morphological processing in adult dyslexia. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35,
471–490. doi:10.1007/s10936-006-9025-8
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention
study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 289–307. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_6
Quemart, P., & Casalis, S. (2013). Visual processing of derivational morphology in children with developmental
dyslexia: Insights from masked priming. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 345–376.
Rueckl, J. G. (2010). Connectionism and the role of morphology in visual word recognition. The Mental Lexicon, 5,
371–400. doi:10.1075/ml.5.3
Schiff, R., & Raveh, M. (2007). Deficient morphological processing in adults with developmental dyslexia: Another
barrier to efficient word recognition? Dyslexia, 13, 110–129. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0909
Shatil, E. (1997a). One-minute test for words (Unpublished test). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Shatil, E. (1997b). One-minute test for pseudowords (Unpublished test). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Shatil, E. (2001). Phonological test battery (Unpublished test). University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
The Center of Psychometric Tests. (1994). Comprehension test [Unpublished data]. Government Council on Higher
Education, Jerusalem, Israel.
Tsesmeli, S. N., Douvalis, D., & Kyrou, K. (2011). Effects of morphological training on individuals with difficulties in
spelling acquisition: Evidence from Greek. In B. C. Fabini (Ed.), Spelling skills: Acquisition, abilities, and reading
connection (pp. ?1–?50). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Tsesmeli, S. N., & Seymour, P. H. (2009). The effects of training of morphological structure on spelling derived words
by dyslexic adolescents. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 565–592. doi:10.1348/000712608X371915
Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2003). The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 209–
217. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_1
Verhoeven, L., & Schreuder, R. (2011). Morpheme frequency effects in Dutch complex word reading: A developmental
perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 483–498. doi:10.1017/S0142716411000178
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.