Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “READING”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

By the way, doctor. I read in your July 2003 article on the new blood pressure guidelines with interest because I have high blood pressure. But one thing bothers me about articles on blood pressure: they always seem to talk about blood pressure as if it were the same number all day long. In my case, the systolic pressure can vary by 30 points and the diastolic by 15. So which should you use as your blood pressure reading: the average, the highest, or the lowest?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed2005

Short-term in-office practice improves reading performance with stand magnifiers for people with AMD.

PURPOSE: People with low vision often use optical low vision aids to assist reading. There have been numerous training programs recommended to train people using magnifiers for reading. However, most of the programs are time consuming and labor intensive. In this study, we investigated the effects of home-based large print reading practice on reading performance when stand magnifiers (STM's) are first prescribed. METHODS: Thirty-two subjects with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and with minimal experience in using magnifiers for reading were recruited. They were divided into three groups: control, practice 1 (P1), and practice 2 (P2). Before the prescription of STM's, all the subjects were given the same amount of in-office practice with the STM (weeks 0 to 2). In addition, in these 2 weeks, P1 and P2 subjects were given large print books to read daily at home. P2 subjects were required to read the large print books through a reduced field of view. The control group subjects received no additional reading practice. Reading rates with and without STM's on passages of text were assessed for all the subjects regularly for 20 weeks. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the control, P1, and P2 groups in the increase in reading rate with STM (p = 0.29). At week 0, reading rate for small print with STM was significantly slower than reading rate on the equivalent-sized large print (p = 0.004); however, as time went on, reading rate with STM's increased significantly (p = 0.02). After 2 weeks of in-office magnifier practice and repeated measures of reading rate with STM, reading rate with STM had improved such that it was not significantly different from reading rate on large print (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION: Supervised, short-term, in-office practice with the magnifier was effective in improving magnifier reading performance to achieve maximum reading rate. Additional large print reading practice did not result in any greater improvement in reading rate than in-office magnifier practice alone.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers.

Two studies of second graders at risk for reading disability, which were guided by levels of language and functional reading system theory, focused on reading comprehension in this population. In Study 1 (n = 96), confirmatory factor analysis of five comprehension measures loaded on one factor in both fall and spring of second grade. Phonological decoding predicted accuracy of real-word reading; automatic letter naming predicted rate of real-word reading; accuracy and rate of both real-word reading (more so than decoding of pseudowords) and text reading predicted reading comprehension; and Verbal IQ also predicted reading comprehension. In Study 2 (n = 98), the treatment group (before/after school clubs receiving an integrated instructional approach that was supplementary to the general reading program) improved significantly more in phonological decoding and state standards for reading fluency than the control group (general reading program that had some code instruction but emphasized comprehension). The rate of phonological decoding explained 60.3% of real-word reading. Both treatment and control children improved significantly in reading comprehension, but controlling for pretreatment individual differences in oral vocabulary or in phonological decoding eliminated this effect. Taken together, the results of the two studies support two paths to reading comprehension: one from vocabulary and verbal reasoning, and one from written language that has multiple links between subskills: (a) alphabetic principle --> phonological decoding, (b) automatic phonological decoding --> accurate real-word reading, (c) automatic letter coding ---> automatic word reading, and (d) automatic word reading --> fluent text reading. Instructional implications of both paths and the links within the written language are discussed.

Child↗