Talk:Rapid automatized naming

Clarify, please

"Since then it has been found in diverse writing systems including Chinese logographs[6] and Japanese kanji and hiragana.[7]"
IMHO this is not quite clear. I assume that it means something like "faster times in RAN trials have been found to be a good indicator of reading competence, not only in alphabetic languages, but in writing systems such as Chinese logographs and Japanese kanji and hiragana as well." Can this be clarified in the article? Thanks. -- 201.19.77.160 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarify, please II

"it predicts reading ability more that phonological decoding in orthographically transparent or shallow alphabetic scripts (such as Dutch or German) than opaque ones (such as English or French)."
Could bolded terms please be Wikilinked or clarified in the article text? Thanks. -- 201.19.77.160 (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline for Rapid Automatized Naming Page:

1) Update the definitions of RAN, expand a bit further.

2) History

- how it was first developed

-what it was used to test

-what RAN is being used to test today

3) Types of RAN Testing

- what methods of RAN are used (numbers, letters, objects, etc)

-what types of RAN tests are used (discrete vs serial)

- what is RAN measuring?

- different standardized RAN tests

- how RAN is used as a diagnostic test

4)Theories

-the role of RAN testing and phonological processing

- research supporting

- research opposing

- the role of RAN testing and orthographic processing and integration

- research supporting

- research opposing

-How RAN is connected to learning to read

-fluency

-working memory

-developing vs struggling readers

-cross linguistic studies

-reading comprehension

5)Double Deficit Hypothesis

-what is the double deficit hypothesis

-how RAN testing is used to look at this hypothesis

Amae2 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Amae2
This outline will provide much more detail and is set to greatly enhance the quality of this article. A few comments for you to consider as you work on your revisions:
Recall who your audience is. Wiki is written for the public and is meant to give an overview, not extreme detail. For example I think you should consider whether the average reader needs to know "how these studies are set up". Even though your revision of this text is for a Psy course, you are writing for the public, not the professor (me) and so the criteria are different.
I particularly like your suggestions for the How RAN is connected to reading section.
I found the original Double Deficit Hypothesis section confusing as it did not link to RAN at all. Once you clarify how RAN is connected to reading, the link between RAN and dyslexia might make much more sense.
One last comemnt, do rely on the existing text where it is clear, neutral and appropriate. It is not desirable to start from scratch! people who have previously worked on this article are more likely to embrace your editing if you have respected their contributions.
Paula Marentette (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

History and Types of RAN Testing

I expanded the previous section on the history of RAN testing. What was in place previously was accurate but was not very detailed. I expanded the section to include the first test that brought on RAN as identified by Denckla and Cutting (1999). I also included how the concept of RAN first began, and linked its development to what it is now being used for. This should introduce the topic further, and provide more breadth into the subject.

I also included the previous information provided by another author, and will be clarifying its content in regards to the previous posts confusion.

I added the section of Types of RAN testing because enough research I came across made a distinction between the types of testing and the impact that they may have. As RAN is used in many different forms I feel that it is important to make the distinction between the different models of testing. This also enables readers to determine the differences between different RAN methods.

Amae2 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Amae2
Great start. I made a few small typo changes and a bit of wording changes for clarity. Revert as you see fit, it seemed easier to suggest the changes in that manner. Please check for editing issues again. For example the reference for Ho and Lai has wrong spacing. In the Types of RAN testing I thought it was interesting that there are two kinds of test, but wondered why? Are they used for different reasons? Do they have different outcomes? A sentence or two on that would be a nice addition.
Finally, I'm not sure what the Wiki practice is on having two reference lists. I guess this arises because previous editors used footnote style and you are using APA. Do you think these can be integrated into one list. I'll suggest APA since you have added so many references. Great work so far. I look forward to seeing the rest of your edits as they come on-line.
Paula Marentette (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Theories

I have added to the various theories presented for explaining RAN. This is a topic that is still quite contested so I attempted to display the various perspectives. This included dividing the perspectives among their basis such as support for phonology, orthography etc. I have expanded the section on the double-deficit hypothesis but it may in fact deserve its own page. Amae2 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Amae2, Great work. This is very clear and is a much improved article. A great contribution.

Picky points:
"The usual method is to ask the subject to repeat 5 random items 10 times. The person names all the stimuli, from left to right across the page, as quickly as possible." These two sentences seem slightly contradictory. Do you mean that the subjects repeats 5 random items or names 5 items in random order? I think this might be clearer: The usual method is to ask the subject to name 5 items 10 times as quickly as possible. The items are presented in random order on a page in the appropriate reading direction for the subject's language." Is that accurate?

I find this sentence challenging to parse: "One finding is that it predicts reading ability more than phonological decoding in orthographically transparent alphabetic scripts (such as Dutch or German in which letter sound correspondences are fairly regular) than in opaque ones (such as English or French in which letter sound correspondences can be very irregular) (Wimmer, Mayringer & Landerl, 2000)." Can it be broken down into two separate thoughts. In which languages is RAN a good predictor of reading ability? (from the text I understand that to be German or Dutch). Why isn't it as good for French or English - and is it true that phonological decoding is a better predictor for those languages? These seem like critical points, so it would be great to have them as clear as possible.

I made a punctuation change in the last sentence under discrete testing. Please check if it changed your intended meaning.

Under Phonological Processing, each sentence is its own paragraph. Can they be linked to create a more coherent whole? Is there anything that this set of researchers agrees upon?

Under Learning to Read: "rapid automatized naming OF WHAT? measured in children before they learn to read". Given the context and the previous sentence, we need to know what these pre-literate children are using for the RAN test.

Paula Marentette (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey Amae2! This is a very interesting topic, I have some suggestions below hope they are useful :)

In the sentence "provide a strong predictor of their later ability to read, and does so independently of other predictors such as phonological awareness, verbal IQ, and existing reading skills (Powell, Stainthorp, Stuart, Garwood & Quinlan, 2007)." have you considered saying " and is independent from other predictors such as" ? I feel it might make the sentence flow more easily. I also suggest embedding the end notes so that it is not a constant stop from reading the article. It is easier to read through small numbers than a full on citation. Watch for some of the 1 and 2 line paragraphs, is there a way to combine them into a larger paragraph? What do you mean by "discrete testing"? In the section about learning to read and the validity of RAN, I suggest using finally over lastly. I also suggest reading the page to yourself out loud and consciously being aware of the punctuation. Take a breath where there is a comma and pause at the periods to see if they make sense. Also, when you use "it's" you should be able to say "it is" and have the sentence still make sense.

If you have any questions about my comments come find me =)

Hkyoung01 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Orthographic Processing
This section needs to be clarified. Assumptions are made but not specified in the last three sentences. "Studies have been conducted where RAN has been seen to measure reading of different kinds of words." Is this saying that a RAN test was conducted involving the naming of different kinds of words? If so, what kinds? "These researchers argue that "the relationship of RAN with reading should be higher if the reading task requires more orthographic knowledge."" Quoting this does not help the average reader. What does it mean with respect to this section on orthographic processing? It seems you are talking about some kind of correlation between RAN results and reading skill, but if that is the case, say so. "The results of some studies tend to support this prediction as stronger relationships were found with exception word reading (de Jong, 2011)." Stronger relationships have to occur between two things, what has a strong relationship with exception word reading? Paula Marentette (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In the end I reorganized this section to align related material. I can't answer the above questions without seeking out the source. Paula Marentette (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rapid automatized naming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry quick fail its unreferenced. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I disagree with the quick fail. The article does not use WP:FOOTNOTES, but it does have inline citations, such as "(Lervag & Hulme, 2009)". They would need to be wikified, but I don't think quick fail is justified here, without giving the editors working on it even a chance to address he issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the referencing is not GA standard. It can be improved and resubmitted or just resubmitted for another reviewer to assess. I wopuld also note that there has been no attempt to improve the referencing. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because no instructions have been given to editors on how it should be improved? Granted, I don't see them asking for more information, but if there was a communication failure here, I feel it came from both ends. Quickfailing an article by new editors with just five words seems to me a bit too harsh, per WP:NEWBIES. May I recommend providing a little more feedback next time you review an article, particularly one by newcomers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)