Mothers Causal Attributions Concerning the

Reading Achievement of Their Children With

and Without Familial Risk for Dyslexia

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volume 41 Number 3
May/June 2008 274-285
2008 Hammill Institute on
Disabilities
10.1177/0022219408316094
http://journaloflearningdisabilities
.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Katja Natale
Kaisa Aunola
Jari-Erik Nurmi
Anna-Maija Poikkeus
Paula Lyytinen
Heikki Lyytinen
University of Jyvskyl, Finland
The present study analyzed data from the Jyvskyl Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia to investigate the factors to which
mothers of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia attribute the causes of their first-grade childrens reading
achievement. Mothers causal attributions were assessed three times during their childrens first school year. Childrens verbal intelligence was assessed at 5 years and their word and nonword reading skills at 6.5 years. The results showed that the
higher the word reading skills the children had, the more their mothers attributed their success to ability than to effort.
However, if children had familial risk for dyslexia, their mothers attribution of success to ability decreased during the first
grade as compared with the ability attributions of mothers whose children were in the control group.
Keywords:

mothers causal attributions; reading performance; dyslexia; first grade of primary school

espite the considerable literature on childrens reading skills and problems in reading, surprisingly little
is known about what parents think about their childrens
early reading development and how such parental conceptions change after childrens school entry. One framework within which to examine parents conceptions and
the ways in which parents explain and evaluate their
childrens academic performance is the causal attribution
theory (Weiner, 1985, 1986, 1992). According to this
view, parents spontaneously form causal attributions to
explain their childrens behavior. Such causal attributions have been shown to be closely linked to childrens
level of performance (Cashmore & Goodnow, 1986;
Dunton, McDevitt, & Hess, 1988; Holloway & Hess,
1985; Natale, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2005; Yee & Eccles,
1988), and they may also play an important role in what
parents think about their children in general (Johnston,
Reynolds, Freeman, & Geller, 1998). Although some
research has been carried out on parents causal attributions concerning their children, few studies have examined to what factors mothers of children with learning
disabilities attribute their childrens successes and failures

274

(Bryan, Pearl, Zimmerman, & Mathews, 1982; Pearl &

Bryan, 1982; Tollison, Palmer, & Stowe, 1987). To our
knowledge no previous studies have examined how familial risk for learning difficulties, such as risk for dyslexia,
is reflected in parents causal attributions around school
entry. The present study investigated the factors to which
mothers of children with and without familial risk for
dyslexia attribute their childrens success and failure in
reading during the first primary school year and how
these causal attributions change over time.

Parental Causal Attributions and

Childrens Reading Difficulties
The most common causal attributions that parents use
in explaining their childrens academic success and failure
are ability, effort, task difficulty, and teaching (Cashmore
Authors Note: Please address correspondence to Katja Natale,
Department of Psychology, University of Jyvskyl, P.O. Box 35,
40014 Jyvskyl, Finland; e-mail: natale@psyka.jyu.fi.

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

& Goodnow, 1986; Dunton et al., 1988; Georgiou, 1999;

Holloway & Hess, 1985; Kinlaw, Kurtz-Costes, &
Goldman-Fraser, 2001; OSullivan & Howe, 1996; Rty,
Vnsk, Kasanen, & Krkkinen, 2002; Natale et al.,
2005; Yee & Eccles, 1988). Such causal attributions vary
along three dimensions: locus (internalexternal), stability (stableunstable), and controllability (controllable
uncontrollable) (Weiner, 1985, 1986). Ability and effort
are both internal causal attributions, whereas task difficulty and teachers competence are external attributions.
Ability however is a stable characteristic and beyond the
control of the child, whereas the amount of effort is an
unstable property and controllable by the child. Task difficulty and teachers competence in turn are both stable
and uncontrollable properties. Of these attributions, parents
typically refer to ability as a cause of their childrens academic success and to effort as a cause of their academic
failure (Dunton et al., 1988; Holloway & Hess, 1985;
Natale et al., 2005; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
It has been shown previously that the higher the performance children show, the more their parents attribute their
childrens success to ability and the less they attribute it to
effort or teaching (Dunton et al., 1988; Holloway & Hess,
1985; Natale, Aunola, & Nurmi (in press); Natale et al.,
2005; Yee & Eccles, 1988). Not surprisingly, parents of
children diagnosed as having learning difficulties (LD),
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or receiving special
education services have a higher tendency to attribute their
childrens academic or behavioral success to external
causes, such as luck, and their failure to internal causes,
such as lack of ability or other child-related characteristics,
compared to mothers of children without such difficulties
(Himelstein, Graham, & Weiner, 1991; Johnston et al., 1998;
Johnston & Freeman, 1997; Pearl & Bryan, 1982; Tollison
et al., 1987). However, no previous studies have been carried out on how familial risk for learning difficulties, such
as dyslexia, is reflected in parents causal attributions concerning their childrens reading achievement. This was the
major aim of the present study.
Although it is known that parents form their causal
attributions concerning their childrens success and failure
already when the children are relatively young (Miller,
1995), there is less information on how childrens emerging academic skills prior to school, such as prereading
skills, contribute to the causal attributions of their parents.
Most of the previous studies have also concentrated on
parents causal attributions concerning childrens performance in mathematics or their general school performance (Dunton et al., 1988; Holloway & Hess, 1985;
Natale et al., 2005, in press; Yee & Eccles, 1988), and
less is know about the impact of childrens reading
performance on their parents reading-related causal

275

attributions. Consequently, one aim of the present study

was to investigate how 6-year-old childrens prereading
skills, such as word and nonword reading and verbal
intelligence, predict their mothers causal attributions
concerning their childrens reading achievement during
the first grade of primary school.
Many other factors may contribute to parents causal
attributions. For example, mothers educational level
predicts their causal attributions: The higher the level of
education mothers have, the more they attribute their
childrens success to ability and the less they attribute it
to effort (Rty, Kasanen, & Krkkinen, 2006; Natale
et al., 2005). Higher educated parents also have higher
expectations for their childrens future education (Rty,
Leinonen, & Snellman, 2002). Because mothers socioeconomic status and level of education have been shown
to be associated with their childrens risk for dyslexia
(Melekian, 1990), the impact of mothers educational
level on their causal attributions was controlled for in the
present study.
Parents also attribute the causes of their childrens
academic outcomes differently depending on the childs
gender. For example, mothers typically think that their
sons succeed in mathematics because of their ability but
that their daughters success is due to effort (Dunton
et al., 1988; Eccles, Jacobs, & Harold, 1990; Lummis &
Stevenson, 1990; Rty et al., 2002; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
Not all studies however have found gender differences
(Cashmore & Goodnow, 1986). Because previous studies
have shown that childrens gender impacts on parents
causal attributions, gender was also controlled for in the
present analyses.

Aims
The present study examined the following research
questions:
Research Question 1: To what factors do mothers of
children with and without familial risk for dyslexia
attribute their childrens successes and failures in
early reading performance?
Research Question 2: Do mothers causal attributions
concerning their childrens successes and failures
in reading change during the childrens first year of
primary school, and are these changes similar among
mothers of children with and without familial risk
for dyslexia?
Research Question 3: Do childrens word and nonword
reading, verbal intelligence, gender, and mothers
educational level contribute to mothers causal attributions and changes in them during the childrens

276

Journal of Learning Disabilities

first year of primary school? Are these associations

different for mothers of children with and without
familial risk for dyslexia?

Method
Participants and Procedure
The present study is a part of the Jyvskyl Longitudinal
Study of Dyslexia (JLD) in which 204 Finnish children
and their families have been followed from birth to the
third grade. The analyses of the present study involved a
total of 189 children (85 girls and 104 boys) whose
mothers answered the questions concerning their causal
attributions. Approximately half of the participating
children (n = 100, 48 girls and 52 boys) had familial risk
for dyslexia, and the rest (n = 89, 37 girls and 52 boys)
belonged to the control group.
The total sample of the JLD study consists of 204
children born in the Central Finland region from 1993
through 1996, of whom 107 had a dyslexic parent who
also had a close dyslexic relative and 97 belonged to the
matched control group. The participants (including both
the at-risk and control group families) were selected in a
three-stage process from families visiting maternity clinics between 1993 and 1996 in the province of Central
Finland. First, a short questionnaire that contained three
questions concerning difficulties in learning to read and
spell during the early school years among themselves and
close relatives was administered to more than 9,000
parents. Second, a detailed questionnaire concerning the
occurrence of reading and writing difficulties during
childhood was sent to approximately 5,400 parents who
had given their consent to further investigations. Third,
parents who fulfilled the inclusion criteria in the first two
stages were invited for an interview and for assessment of
their reading and writing skills to confirm their present
status of dyslexia. To be selected for the dyslexic sample,
the participants had to obtain z scores (in relation to the
normative sample) of 1.0 or less in several readingrelated tasks and diagnostic measures (phonological
decoding, orthographic processes, oral text reading, and
spelling) that were used to identify participants with
dyslexia. In the present study, half of the mothers of the atrisk children (n = 55) were identified as having reading
and spelling problems, whereas among the other half of
the children (n = 47) it was the father who had reading difficulties. In 2 families, both mother and father had reading
difficulties. A control group of children whose parents did
not show signs of dyslexia was also selected. More details
about the characteristics of the sample were described by
Lyytinen et al. (2001, 2004) and Leinonen et al. (2001).

At birth, at-risk and control group children of the

reduced sample of the present study did not differ according to gestational age, birth weight, or Apgar scores.
Finnish children attend kindergarten from age 6, but
formal schooling and reading instruction begin from age
7, when they enter the first grade.

Measurements
Mothers Measures
Causal attributions. Mothers filled in a questionnaire
measuring their causal attributions concerning their
childrens success and failure at school on three occasions
during the childrens first year of primary school (August,
November, and May). Mothers causal attributions were
measured by a questionnaire consisting of four statements that were based on items used in previous studies
(e.g., Ames & Archer, 1987; Parsons, 1980). Two of the
four statements assessed mothers causal attributions concerning their childrens success in reading (e.g., If my
child does well in assignments related to reading, it is
probably because . . . and If my child is progressing
well in acquiring fluent reading skills, it is probably
because . . . ), and two assessed mothers causal attributions concerning their childrens failure in reading
(e.g., If my child does not do well in some assignments
related to reading, it is probably because . . . and If
my child is progressing slowly in acquiring fluent reading
skills, it is probably because . . . ). After each statement the mothers were asked to rank order four alternatives according to their importance. The alternatives for
success at school were: 1 = the child has abilities, 2 = the
child tries hard, 3 = the teaching has been good, and 4 =
the tasks have been too easy for the child. The alternatives
for failure at school were: 1 = the child lacks the required
abilities, 2 = the child has not invested enough effort, 3 =
the teaching has not been good enough, and 4 = the tasks
have been too difficult for the child. On the basis of the
parents rank-ordered answers, one mean score was
calculated for each type of attribution, namely, ability,
effort, teaching, and task difficulty, separately for the
success and failure situations.
Internal consistency coefficients (Cronbachs alpha)
for mothers causal attributions for success across the
three measurement points were .90, .89, and .85 for ability
attribution; .78, .80, and .85 for effort attribution; .80, .81,
and .83 for teaching attribution; and .64, .82, and .76 for
task difficulty attribution. For mothers causal attributions
for failure, the internal consistency coefficients were .97,
.87, and .88 for ability attribution; .93, .89, and .87 for
effort attribution; .91, .82, and .88 for teaching attribution; and .89, .89, and .84 for task difficulty attribution.

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

The test-retest reliabilities for mothers causal attributions

for success were .55, .69, and .70 for ability attribution;
.44, .47, and .57 for effort attribution; .57, .63, and .68 for
teaching attribution; and .36, .40, and .43 for task difficulty attribution. The test-retest reliabilities for mothers
causal attributions for failure were .54, .60, and .70 for
ability attribution; .41, .46, and .52 for effort attribution;
.44, .46, and .47 for teaching attribution; and .44, .46, and
.52 for task difficulty attribution.
Educational level. Mothers educational level was
classified into seven categories, which were based on a
composite score of basic level education and advanced
educational training (1 = comprehensive school education
without any vocational education, 2 = comprehensive
school education combined with short-term vocational
courses, 3 = comprehensive school education combined
with a vocational school degree, 4 = comprehensive
school education combined with a vocational college
degree, 5 = comprehensive school education combined
with a lower university degree [bachelors] or a degree
at a polytechnic, 6 = upper secondary school diploma
combined with a lower university degree [bachelors] or
a degree at a polytechnic, 7 = comprehensive school or
upper secondary general school diploma combined with
a higher university degree, e.g., masters or a doctorallevel degree). The educational level of the at-risk group
mothers of the present sample (M = 4.22, SD = 1.53) and
control group mothers of the present sample, (M = 4.52,
SD = 1.37) did not differ statistically significantly from
each other, F(185) = 1.19, p = ns. The mothers mean
educational level represented a comprehensive school
education combined with a vocational college degree in
both groups.
Childrens Prereading Skills
Word and nonword reading. The word and nonword
reading tasks were administered to the children within 1
week from the day the children turned 6.5 years of age.
Word and nonword reading tasks were administered to the
child individually in one session at the research laboratory. Separate lists of nine items for words and nonwords
were presented in a fixed order. The participants were
instructed to read each list as accurately and fluently as
they could. The list of words contained nine bisyllabic
content words presumed to be familiar to children of this
age (e.g., father, book, run, small). The list of nonwords
contained nine bisyllabic (vcv, cvcv, vcvc) targets (e.g.,
ame, hopa, olus). Before each task the participants
were presented with a practice list with three items. The
word and nonword items were derived from a test battery

277

compiled as part of the pan-European collaborative project (COST A8 Action Learning Disorders as a Barrier
to Human Development). The score in each task was
the number of items the child read accurately. A sum
score (ranging from 0 to 18) was formed from the word
and nonword reading tasks and used as one variable in
the present study. The mean level for word and nonword
reading was 3.22 (SD = 5.96) for the at-risk group and
5.45 (SD = 7.47) for the control group. Word and nonword reading performance was statistically significantly
lower in the at-risk group compared to control group,
F(196) = 21, p < .05. Cronbachs alpha for the sum score
was .95 (see also Lyytinen et al., 2006).
Verbal intelligence. A short form of the Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceR (WPPSI-R;
Wechsler, 1989) was administered at 5.0 years of age and
consisted of three verbal quotient subtests (vocabulary,
arithmetic, and comprehension) and three performance
quotient subtests (block design, object assembly, and picture completion). The childrens verbal and performance
IQs were estimated on the basis of these subtests according to the standard guidelines outlined in the manual.
The mean level for verbal intelligence was lower in the
at-risk group (M = 104.28, SD = 16.91) than in the control
group (M = 110.96, SD = 12.59), F(195) = 6.77, p < .01.
However, the difference between the two groups was not
statistically significant, F(194) = 0.34, p = ns (see also
Lyytinen et al., 2006).

Analysis Strategy
The research questions were analyzed using latent
growth curve modeling (LGM; Duncan et al., 1997). The
analyses were carried out in three steps. First, to investigate the extent to which mothers causal attributions
would change across time, LGMs were carried out separately for each type of causal attribution (ability, effort,
teaching, and task difficulty) in success and failure situations. In these analyses, the mean level of the causal attributions, their average growth, and individual variation
across these means were estimated. The residual variances of the observed variables were allowed to be freely
estimated. Second, to investigate the extent to which
childs dyslexia status, word and nonword reading, verbal
intelligence, and mothers level of education (Time 0)
would predict the level and changes in mothers causal
attributions, these predictors were included in the models
as covariates. Third, to investigate whether the mothers
educational level, childrens prereading skills, and gender
would predict mothers causal attributions differently
among the group with familial risk for dyslexia and among

278

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 1
Sample Correlation Matrix Between Mothers Causal Attributions and Their Level of Education
and Childrens Status of Dyslexia, Word-Nonword Reading, and Verbal Intelligence
Success
Cause
Abilitya
Abilityb
Abilityc
Efforta
Effortb
Effortc
Teachinga
Teachingb
Teachingc
Taska
Taskb
Taskc

Failure

Educational
Level

Status of
Dyslexia

Word
Reading

Verbal
Intelligence

Gender

Educational
Level

Status of
Dyslexia

Word
Reading

Verbal
Intelligence

Gender

.19*
.21*
.19*
.01
.14
.06
.08
.15
.09
.18*
.07
.10

.06
.18*
.16*
.05
.09
.06
.04
.16
.00
.18*
.01
.19*

.33**
.50*
.50**
.14
.30**
.32**
.42**
.51**
.32**
.21*
.26**
.22**

.13
.15
.25**
.09
.07
.15
.31**
.33
.18*
.17*
.12
.05

.03
.06
.02
.01
.11
.08
.13
.13
.06
.10
.06
.01

.07
.03
.01
.06
.04
.10
.07
.15
.05
.13
.15
.01

.25**
.25**
.10
.11
.25**
.14
.00
.07
.09
.11
.02
.02

.18*
.10
.07
.11
.06
.03
.09
.03
.20*
.18*
.05
.29**

.23*
.14
.12
.04
.06
.06
.04
.03
.00
.14
.01
.09

.06
.04
.11
.13
.03
.26**
.05
.02
.10
.08
.06
.28**

a. Time 1.
b. Time 2.
c. Time 3.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Mothers Causal Attributions at Different Measurement Points
Whole Sample
Time 1
Cause
Success
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Failure
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task

Time 2

At-Risk Group
Time 3

Time 1

Time 2

Control Group
Time 3

Time 1

Time 2

Time 3

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

2.94
2.87
2.89
1.37

0.93
0.86
0.83
0.67

2.92
2.86
2.87
1.42

0.95
0.83
0.91
0.72

2.98
2.74
2.94
1.42

0.91
0.88
0.85
0.73

2.91
2.86
2.89
1.48

1.01
0.92
0.84
0.73

2.76
2.88
3.02
1.45

0.94
0.86
0.89
0.79

2.83
2.85
2.95
1.54

0.96
0.89
0.90
0.86

2.99
2.88
2.91
1.25

0.83
0.79
0.81
0.58

3.09
2.83
2.72
1.37

0.93
0.82
0.91
0.64

3.17
2.65
2.93
1.28

0.86
0.85
0.79
0.58

1.88
3.01
2.85
2.36

1.11
1.01
0.95
0.93

2.07
3.14
2.63
2.25

1.08
0.94
0.86
1.04

1.86
3.17
2.64
2.41

1.01
0.88
0.91
0.99

2.09
2.91
2.87
2.30

1.20
1.04
0.95
0.98

2.24
2.98
2.66
2.25

1.12
0.97
0.82
1.11

1.99
3.08
2.71
2.37

1.02
0.96
0.91
1.00

1.63
3.13
2.85
2.41

0.94
0.95
0.94
0.87

1.86
3.34
2.60
2.27

0.99
0.87
0.91
0.94

1.71
3.28
2.57
2.46

0.98
0.80
0.90
0.98

the control group, multigroup (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993)

LGM analyses were carried out. The correlations
between mothers causal attributions and their predictors
(observed variables) are presented in Table 1.
All the analyses were performed using the Mplus
statistical package (Version 3.01; Muthn & Muthn,
19982004). Using the missing data method with the
MRL estimator (Muthn & Muthn, 19982004), we
were able to utilize all observations available in the data
set. The means and standard deviations for mothers causal
attributions at each measurement point are presented in

Table 2 for the whole sample and separately for the at-risk
and control groups.

Results
Changes in Mothers Causal Attributions
First, latent growth curve models were constructed for
each causal attribution variable separately to investigate
the mean level, average change, and interindividual variation across these mean components in mothers causal

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

279

Table 3
Parameter Estimates (Unstandardized Forms) of Latent Growth Curve Models
for Mothers Causal Attributions (Each From Separate Analyses)
Growth Parameters
Means
Level
Cause
Success
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task
Failure
Ability
Effort
Teaching
Task

Variances
Linear Trend

Level

Linear Trend

Estimate

t-Value

Estimate

t-Value

Estimate

t-Value

Estimate

t-Value

2.93
2.86
2.89
1.36

39.06
40.71
43.97
23.19

0.03

0.02

0.86

0.72

0.72
0.38
0.60
0.20

5.92
6.31
6.73
3.75

0.13

0.08

2.55

2.05

1.91
3.02
2.81
2.34

21.09
37.93
37.07
29.94

0.08
0.10

1.96
2.34

0.69
0.41
0.36
0.46

6.98
5.83
6.77
6.34

0.00a
0.00a

0.00a
0.00a

Note: t-values greater than 1.96 in magnitude indicate a parameter estimate that is significantly different from zero.
a. Fixed to 0.

attributions. All the models were constructed across three

measurement points. The model construction across the
three measurement points was started by testing a model
that contained two growth components: initial status and
linear trend. All the final models included only those
growth components that were either statistically significant, showed variation, or both. Variance parameters that
were not statistically significant were fixed to zero. The
results for the final models are presented in Table 3.
The results for the ability attribution for success showed
that at the mean level, there were no changes in ability
attributions over time. The variances of both the level and
the linear trend were statistically significant, indicating
significant individual differences both in the initial status
and in the developmental trend of mothers ability attributions for success. The results for the teaching attribution
for success (Table 3) showed first that at the mean level,
there were no changes in teaching attributions. However,
the variance both in the level and the linear trend were
statistically significant, indicating significant individual
differences both in the initial status and the developmental
trend. The results for the effort and task difficulty attributions for success showed no changes at the mean level.
Moreover, there was statistically significant variance only
in the level of these attributions.
The results for the teaching attribution for failure
showed first that at the mean level in mothers teaching
attribution for failure, there was a statistically significant
decreasing trend. Moreover, there was also statistically
significant variance in the initial level of mothers teaching
attributions for failure, indicating individual differences

in the overall level of the attributions. However, the variance in the linear trend was not significant. The result for
the effort attribution for failure showed that at the mean
level, there was an increasing trend. Furthermore, there
was also statistically significant variance in the level of
mothers effort attributions, indicating individual differences in effort attributions for failure. However, there
was no statistically significant variance in the linear
trend. The results for the ability attribution for failure
showed no changes at the mean level. Moreover, there
was statistically significant variance only in the level of
the ability attribution for failure, indicating individual
differences in the level but not in the linear trend. The
results for the task difficulty attribution for failure showed
no changes at the mean level. Moreover, there was statistically significant variance only in the level of the attribution, indicating individual differences in the level but
not in the linear trend.

Antecedents of Mothers Causal Attributions

Causal Attributions for Success
To examine the extent to which childrens dyslexia
risk status, word and nonword reading (see Note 1), verbal intelligence, gender, and mothers level of education
would predict mothers causal attributions, LGMs were
constructed in which these variables were added as
covariates to the models described previously. Testing of
the models was started by estimating the paths from the
predictor variables to those growth components that had

280

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 4
Statistically Significant Parameter Estimates for the Predictors of Mothers Causal
Attributions (Each From Separate Analyses)
Mothers Causal Attributions
Success
Variable
Dyslexia risk
Word reading
Educational level
Childs gender
R2

Ability
Level

Change

Failure

Effort
Level

Teaching
Level

.39***

.50***

Change

.20*
.45***
.14*
.24

.04

.15

.25

.00

Task
Level

Ability
Level

Effort
Level

.27**
.42***

.23**

.20*

.21

.05

.04

Teaching
Level

Task
Level

.22*
.19*

.30**
.19*

.07

.11

Note: The results for mothers ability attribution for success are presented in Figure 1.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

statistically significant variance. The final models contained only statistically significant paths and are presented
in Table 4.
The LGM (Figure 2 and Table 4) for ability attributions for success, 2 = 6.98, df = 7, p = .43, Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) = 1.00, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.00, showed that the linear trend of
mothers ability attributions was predicted by childrens
dyslexia risk status at Time 0: Among the control group,
mothers ability attributions for success increased during
the first year of primary school compared with the group
with familial risk for dyslexia (Figure 1). Furthermore,
the level of mothers ability attributions was predicted by
mothers educational level and childrens word and nonword reading skills: The higher the mothers educational
level and the higher the childrens word and nonword
reading skills, the more the mothers attributed their
childrens success in reading to ability.
The LGM for effort attributions for success, 2 = 6.83,
df = 4, p = .14, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, showed that
childrens word and nonword reading skills at Time 0
predicted negatively the level of mothers effort attributions (Table 4): The higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the less their mothers
attributed their success to effort.
The LGM for teaching attributions for success, 2 = 8.22,
df = 3, p = .04, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.10, showed that
childrens word and nonword reading skills at Time 0
predicted negatively the level of mothers teaching attributions (Table 4): The higher the word and nonword
reading skills the children showed, the less their mothers
attributed their success to teaching.
The LGM for task difficulty attributions for success,
2 = 2.97, df = 6, p = .81, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00,
showed that childrens dyslexia risk status predicted the
level of mothers task difficulty attributions (Table 4):

Figure 1
Change in Mothers Ability of Attributions for
Success During Their Childrens First School Year

Among the children who had the risk for dyslexia, the
mothers attributed their success more to the easiness of
the tasks than among the control group. Furthermore, the
results showed that childrens word and nonword reading
skills at Time 0 predicted the level of mothers task easiness attributions: The higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the more their mothers
attributed their success to the easiness of the tasks.
Causal Attributions for Failure
Next, analogous LGMs were carried out for mothers
causal attributions for failure.
The LGM for ability attributions for failure, 2 = 5.73,
df = 4, p = .22, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, showed first
that childrens dyslexia risk status predicted the level of
their mothers ability attribution for failure (Table 4):
The mothers of the children who had the risk for dyslexia
attributed failure in reading more to lack of ability than
did the mothers of the children in the control group.

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

Figure 2
Latent Growth Curve Modeling With Statistically
Significant Predictors (Standardized Estimates)
for Mothers Ability of Attribution for Success

281

difficulty attribution for failure: The higher the word and

nonword reading skills the children showed, the more
their mothers attributed their failure in reading to the difficulty of the tasks.

Group Differences
Ability 1

Ability 2

Ability 3

Level of
Ability
Attribution
R 2 = 0.24

1
0.45
0.20*

Linear Trend
of Ability
Attribution
R 2 = 0.04

0.45***
Dyslexia
Risk Status
0.14*
Word
Reading

Mothers
Education

Note: 2 = 6.98, df = 7, p = .43, Comparative Fit Index = 1.00, root

mean square error of approximation = 0.00.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

The LGM for effort attributions for failure, 2 = 3.48,

df = 5, p = .63, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, showed that
childrens dyslexia risk status predicted the level of
mothers effort attribution for failure (Table 4): Mothers
in the at-risk group attributed their childrens failure less
to effort than did mothers in the control group.
The LGM for teaching attributions for failure, 2 = 7.13,
df = 7, p = .42, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, showed that
mothers educational level predicted the level of their
teaching attribution for failure (Table 4): The higher the
educational level the mothers had, the more they attributed their childrens failure to poor teaching. Furthermore,
the results showed that childrens word and nonword
reading skills at Time 0 predicted negatively the level of
their mothers teaching attribution for failure: The higher
the word and nonword reading skills the children showed,
the less their mothers attributed their failure in reading to
poor teaching.
The LGM for task difficulty attributions for failure,
2 = 8.89, df = 6, p = .18, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05,
showed that mothers educational level predicted negatively the level of their task difficulty attribution for failure
(Table 4): The higher the educational level the mothers
had, the less they attributed their childrens failure in
reading to the difficulty of the tasks. Furthermore, the
results showed that childrens word and nonword reading
skills at Time 0 predicted the level of their mothers task

To examine whether mothers educational level and

childrens word and nonword reading skills, verbal intelligence, and gender would predict mothers causal attributions similarly among the group of children with familial
risk for dyslexia and the control group, all the analyses
were also carried out for both groups by using LGM multisample procedure (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). In these
analyses, the data were divided into two groups, the at-risk
group and the control group. Then, using the multisample
procedure, LGMs were carried out on the assumption that
the paths from mothers educational level and from
childrens word and nonword reading skills, verbal intelligence, and gender to the level and trend components of
mothers causal attributions would be equal for these two
groups. If the fit of the model were good and no modification indices above the level of 8 were found, the model
would be assumed to fit equally both groups. However, if
the fit of the model were poor and the modification indices
were larger than 8, the models were changed according to
the modification indices.
These analyses showed that in most cases the same
model fitted both groups data, with two exceptions: The
initial model for effort attribution for failure showed only
a moderate fit, 2 = 36.39, df = 27, p = .11, CFI = 0.85,
RMSEA = 0.06. The modification indices for this model
suggested that estimating the path from childrens word
and nonword reading skills to the level of mothers effort
attribution for failure separately among the two groups
would increase the fit of the model. After this modification the fit of the model was good, 2 = 29.38, df = 26,
p = .29, CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.04. The results showed
that childrens word and nonword reading skills predicted
the at-risk groups mothers level of effort attributions for
failure (standardized estimate = .32, p < .01): The better
the word and nonword reading skills the at-risk groups
childrens showed, the more their mothers attributed their
failure to effort. No predictions were found for the effort
attributions of the mothers in the control group (standardized estimate = .13, p = ns).
The initial LGM for teaching attribution for failure
showed poor fit, 2 = 40.75, df = 27, p = .04, CFI = 0.82,
RMSEA = 0.07. The modification indices for this model
suggested that estimating the path from childrens word
and nonword reading skills to the level of mothers
teaching attributions for failure separately among the
two groups would improve the fit of the model. After this

282

Journal of Learning Disabilities

specification, the fit of the model was moderate, 2 = 34.47,

df = 26, p = .12, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.06. The results
showed that childrens word and nonword reading skills
predicted only the at-risk groups mothers level of teaching attributions for failure (standardized estimate = .44,
p < .001): The higher the word and nonword reading
skills the children showed, the less their mothers attributed their failure to teaching. No predictions were found
among the mothers of the control group (standardized
estimate = .07, p = ns).

Discussion
Alongside childrens academic skills, their learning
difficulties, or even risk for them, may have an impact on
how parents interpret the causes of their childrens successes and failures at school (Bryan et al., 1982; Pearl &
Bryan, 1982; Tollison et al., 1987). The results of the
present study showed that the mothers of children with
familial risk for dyslexia attributed their childrens failure more to lack of ability and less to effort compared to
the mothers of the control group children. Furthermore,
among the mothers of children in the at-risk group, their
ability attributions for success decreased during the first
primary school year, whereas among the control group
mothers, such attributions increased. The results showed
also that the higher the word and nonword reading skills
the children showed, the more the mothers attributed
their success in reading to ability and the less they attributed it to effort.

Mothers Causal Attributions and Childrens

Familial Risk for Dyslexia
The first aim of the present study was to investigate
how childrens familial risk for dyslexia would be
reflected in mothers causal attributions concerning their
childrens academic successes and failures when the
children entered to the first grade of primary school. The
results showed that the mothers of children with familial
risk for dyslexia attributed their childrens success in
reading more to the easiness of the task compared to the
mothers of the control group children. In failure situations, mothers of children with familial risk for dyslexia
emphasized more the lack of ability and less the role of
effort compared to the mothers of the control group
children. These results suggest that mothers of children
with familial risk for dyslexia are less confident of their
childrens reading abilities than other mothers, and this is
then reflected in their causal attributions concerning their
childrens successes and failures. These results are in
accordance with some previous findings showing that

mothers of children with LD attribute their failure more

to lack of ability compared to mothers of children without
LD (Bryan et al., 1982; Pearl & Bryan, 1982; Tollison
et al., 1987). The results of the present study add to these
findings by showing that even familial risk for specific
learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, leads to a similar
kind of attributional pattern. One possible explanation
for these results is that concerns or doubts about childs
progress in reading, which may partly originate from
the at-risk groups mothers own experiences at school,
lead mothers to attribute their childrens success less to
internal causes (i.e., ability) and more to external causes
(i.e., task easiness).
The second aim of the present study was to investigate
how mothers causal attributions concerning their
childrens academic success and failure changed during
the childrens first year of primary school. The results
showed that mothers ability attributions for success in
reading changed differently during their childrens first
grade among mothers of children with and those without
familial risk for dyslexia. When children had familial risk
for dyslexia, their mothers ability attributions concerning
the childrens success in reading decreased during the
first school year. By contrast, mothers of the control
group children increasingly attributed their childrens
success to ability during the same period. These results
add to the previous findings in the field by showing that
when a child has familial risk for learning difficulties,
such as dyslexia, mothers ability attributions for success
decrease during the childs first year of primary school.
What was interesting was that this was true even after
controlling for childrens initial word reading skills and
mothers level of education. Overall, these results suggest
that mothers of children with a risk for dyslexia not only
have less faith in their childrens abilities but seem to
strengthen their conceptions during the first school year.
Such an attributional pattern among mothers may lead to
increasing problems among children at school because
lack of parents ability attributions concerning childrens
success have been found to decrease childrens subsequent academic performance (Natale et al., in press).
Consequently, one way to prevent future problems among
children with familial risk for dyslexia would be to
strengthen their parents belief that their children can still
do well in reading despite of their familial risk.

Mothers Causal Attributions, Prereading

Skills, and Mothers Level of Education
The present study also investigated how childrens prereading skills would contribute to mothers causal attributions concerning their childrens reading outcomes. The

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

results revealed first that the higher the word and nonword reading skills the children showed, the more the
mothers attributed their childrens success to their ability
in reading and the less to effort. These results are in line
with previous studies showing that the higher the performance children show at primary school, the more their
mothers attribute their success to internal and stable
causes, such as ability, and the less they attribute it to
internal and unstable causes, such as effort (Dunton et al.,
1988; Holloway & Hess, 1985; Natale et al., in press; Yee
& Eccles, 1988). The results of the present study also
showed that the higher the childrens word and nonword
reading skills, the less their mothers attributed their success to teaching. Similar results were found previously by
Natale et al. (2005). Overall, the results of the present
study are interesting because they show that similar attributional patterns among parents are not only predicted by
childrens math achievement (Dunton et al., 1988;
Holloway & Hess, 1985; Yee & Eccles, 1988) and general
school performance (Natale et al., 2005, in press) but also
by childrens reading performance.
The results for failure showed that the higher the word
and nonword reading skills the children showed, the less
their mothers attributed their failure in reading to poor
teaching and the more they attributed their failure to lack
of effort. This was especially true among the at-risk
group for dyslexia. These results support the findings of
previous studies showing that when children perform
well at school, their parents tend to attribute their failure
to effort (Dunton et al., 1988; Natale et al., 2005). By
doing so, mothers may encourage children to perform
better and to motivate them to try harder in the future
(Natale et al., 2005; Weiner, 1994; Yee & Eccles, 1988).
This result also suggests that these mothers are strongly
confident of their childrens abilities. Similarly, the
higher the word and nonword reading skills the children
showed, the more their mothers attributed their failure to
task difficulty. Again, if mothers perceive their children
as talented readers and the child fails in reading-related
tasks, they may conclude that the tasks are too difficult
for the child.
Interestingly, the associations found between childrens
skills and parents causal attributions were particularly
profound in the case of children with familial risk for
dyslexia. The higher the word and nonword reading skills
the children showed, the more their mothers attributed
their failure to effort and task difficulty but the less they
attributed it to poor teaching. These results suggest that
mothers of children with a familial risk for dyslexia are
particularly sensitive to the feedback concerning their
childrens reading development. The results of the present
study suggest that if at-risk children show a relatively high

283

level of word and nonword reading skills, their mothers

begin to attribute their failure to effort. As has been found
in previous research (Juvonen & Murdock, 1993; Natale,
Aunola, & Nurmi, 2007; Weiner, 1994), effort attributions
for failure support accuracy of self-concept and improvement in future performance. Consequently, mothers of
children with a familial risk for dyslexia may be able to
contribute to their childrens positive development by
expressing such effort attributions after academic failure.
One aim of the present study was to investigate how
mothers educational level predicts their causal attributions. The results showed that the higher the educational
level the mothers had, the more they attributed their
childrens success to ability in reading and the more they
attributed their childrens failure to poor teaching and the
less they attributed it to task difficulty. There are several
possible explanations for these results. First, mothers
with a high level of education may be more confident
about their childrens academic skills and abilities
because of their own positive experiences at school (Rty
et al., 2006; Natale et al., 2005). Second, because mothers
with a high level of education may be more involved with
their childrens schoolwork (Stevenson & Baker, 1987),
they may simply have better knowledge of their
childrens skills, which is then also reflected in their
causal attributions (Natale et al., 2005). An interesting
research question for future studies would be to examine
how parents causal attributions concerning their
childrens academic successes and failures are reflected
in their involvement in their childrens schoolwork and
the feedback they give to their children, especially among
children who are at risk for learning difficulties.

Limitations
There are several limitations that should be considered
in any attempt to generalize the findings of the present
study. First, the present study investigated how childrens
familial risk for dyslexia is reflected in their mothers
causal attributions. None of the children in the sample
had been diagnosed as having dyslexia yet. In other words,
the familial risk for dyslexia originated in the parents
reports and was their characteristics rather than their
childrens. Thus, the results of the present study showed
only how familial risk for dyslexia is reflected in mothers
causal attributions and cannot be generalized as such to
children with learning disabilities. Second, although the
previous literature has shown that mothers spontaneously
form many different attributions to explain their childrens
cognitive abilities (Jaworski & Hubert, 1994), the present
study contained only four types of causal attributions
(i.e., ability, effort, teaching, and task difficulty). Thus, it

284

Journal of Learning Disabilities

is possible that the use of open-ended procedures would

have produced different findings. Third, the variances in
the linear trends of the causal attributions were relatively
small, indicating relatively small individual differences
in the changes in mothers causal attributions. Fourth, the
acquisition of basic phonological reading skills in Finnish
schools is a relatively rapid process for beginning readers:
More than 95% of Finnish children are already accurate
and relatively fluent readers at the end of the second
grade (Lyytinen et al., 2006). Consequently, it is possible
that some of the results found in the present study may
not match those found among the learners of other, less
orthographically regular languages, such as English. Fifth,
the present study was carried out in one particular country,
Finland. Previous studies have shown that mothers causal
attributions are influenced by the surrounding culture
(Bugental & Happaney, 2002; Holloway, 1988). Finally,
the present study concerned only the causal attributions
of mothers, and thus, the results cannot be generalized on
the causal attributions of fathers.

Conclusion
The present study showed that familial risk for specific
learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, has consequences
for mothers interpretation of the causes of their childrens
reading achievement during the first school year: The
mothers of the at-risk group children attributed their
childrens failure more to lack of ability and less to effort
than the mothers of the control group children. Moreover,
they showed a decreasing tendency to attribute their
childrens success in reading to ability, whereas the
mothers of the control children showed an increasing tendency toward such attributions. However, reading skill can
be learned only through practice. It is possible that
although the mothers of the at-risk group children showed
less confidence in their childrens abilities in reading, they
simultaneously try to support their childrens developing
reading skills by emphasizing the role of effort and practice in learning to read. One way to create such a positive
learning environment at home might be a parent-guided
computer-assisted training program for learning to read.
Such a program has been recently shown to have positive
results among beginning readers who are struggling with
learning to read (Hintikka, Aro, & Lyytinen, 2005).

Note
1. Because the word and nonword reading variable showed a floor
effect, this variable was also recoded as a dichotomous variable
indicating whether the child could read (score > 0) or not (score < 0),
and all the subsequent analyses were carried out using this variable.
However, all the results remained the same.

References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers beliefs about the role of ability
and effort in school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
79, 409-414.
Bryan, T., Pearl, R., Zimmerman, D., & Matthews, F. (1982).
Mothers evaluations of their learning-disabled children. Journal
of Special Education, 16, 149-159.
Bugental, D. B., & Happaney, K. (2002). Parental attributions. In
M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 3: Being
and becoming a parent (pp. 509535). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cashmore, J. A., & Goodnow, J. J. (1986). Parent-child agreement
on attributional beliefs. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 9, 191-204.
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., Alpert, A., Hops, H., Stoolmiller, M., &
Muthn, B. (1997). Latent variable modelling of longitudinal and
multilevel substance use data. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
32, 275-318.
Dunton, K., McDevitt, T., & Hess, R. (1988). Origins of mothers
attributions about their daughters and sons performance in mathematics in sixth grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 47-70.
Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents socialization of gender
differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183-201.
Georgiou, S. N. (1999). Parental attributions as predictors of involvement and influences on child achievement. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 409-429.
Himelstein, S., Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1991). An attributional
analysis of maternal beliefs about the importance of child-rearing
practices. Child Development, 62, 301-310.
Hintikka, S., Aro, M., & Lyytinen, H. (2005). Computerized training
of the correspondences between phonological and orthographic
units. Written Language & Literacy, 8, 155-178.
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and
the United States. Review of Educational Research, 58, 327-345.
Holloway, S. D., & Hess, R. D. (1985). Mothers and teachers attributions about childrens mathematical performance. In I. E. Siegel
(Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences
for children (pp. 177199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jaworski, T., & Hubert, N. (1994). Mothers attributions for their
childrens cognitive abilities. Infant Behavior and Development,
17, 265-275.
Johnston, C., & Freeman, W. (1997). Attributions for child behaviour
in parents of children without behaviour disorders and children
with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 65, 636-645.
Johnston, C., Reynolds, S., Freeman, W. S., & Geller, J. (1998).
Assessing parent attributions for child behaviour using open-ended
questions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 87-97.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural equation
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Juvonen, J., & Murdock, T. B. (1993). How to promote social approval:
Effects of audience and outcome on publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 365-376.
Kinlaw, C. R., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Goldman-Fraser, J. (2001). Mothers
achievement beliefs and behaviors and their childrens school
readiness: A cultural comparison. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 22, 493-506.
Leinonen, S., Mller, K., Leppnen, P. H. T., Aro, M., Ahonen, T., &
Lyytinen, H. (2001). Heterogeneity in adult dyslexic readers:

Natale et al. / Mothers and Childrens Reading

Relating processing skills to the speed and accuracy of oral text
reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14,
265-296.
Lummis, M., & Stevenson, H. W. (1990). Gender differences in
beliefs and achievement: A cross-cultural study. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 254-263.
Lyytinen, H., Ahonen, T., Eklund, K., Guttorm, T. K., Kulju, P., Laakso,
M.-L., et al. (2004). Early development of children at familial
risk for dyslexiaFollow up from birth to school age. Dyslexia,
10, 146-178.
Lyytinen, H., Ahonen, T., Eklund, K., Guttorm, T. K., Laakso,
M.-L., Leinonen, S., et al. (2001). Developmental pathways of
children with and without familial risk for dyslexia during the first
years of life. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 535-554.
Lyytinen, H., Erskine, J., Tolvanen, A., Torppa, M., Poikkeus, A.-M., &
Lyytinen, P. (2006). Trajectories of reading development: A followup from birth to school age of children with and without risk for
dyslexia. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 514-546.
Melekian, B. A. (1990). Family characteristics of children with
dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 386-391.
Miller, S. A. (1995). Parents attributions for their childrens behaviour.
Child Development, 66, 1557-1584.
Muthn, L., & Muthn, B. O. (19982004). Mplus. Users guide. Los
Angeles: Author.
OSullivan, J. T., & Howe, M. L. (1996). Causal attributions and reading achievement: Individual differences in low-income families.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 363-387.
Parsons, J. E. (1980). Instrumentation. Final report. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. (1982). Mothers attributions for their learning
disabled childs successes and failures. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 5, 53-57.
Rty, H., Kasanen, K., & Krkkinen, R. (2006). School subjects as
social categorizations. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 5-25.
Rty, H., Leinonen, T., & Snellman, L. (2002). Parents educational
expectations and their social-pscyhological patterning. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 46, 129-144.
Rty, H., Vnsk, J., Kasanen, K., & Krkkinen, R. (2002). Parents
explanations of their childs performance in mathematics and
reading: A replication and extension of Yee and Eccles. Sex Roles,
46, 121-128.
Natale, K., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2005). Parents causal attributions concerning their childrens school achievement: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 494-522.
Natale, K., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). Do parents causal
attributions predict the accuracy and bias of their childrens selfconcept of math ability? A longitudinal study. Educational
Psychology, 27, 771-788.
Natale, K., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (in press). The role of
childrens school performance in their parents ability and effort
attributions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology.
Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1987). The family-school relation and
the childs school performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.

285

Tollison, P., Palmer, D. J., & Stowe, M. L. (1987). Mothers expectations, interactions, and achievement attributions for their learning
disabled or normally achieving sons. Journal of Special Education,
21, 83-93.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
IntelligenceRevised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation
and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion.
New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation. Metaphors, theories, and
research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.
Yee, D. K., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Parent perceptions and attributions
for childrens math achievement. Sex Roles, 19, 317-333.

Katja Natale, MA, is a researcher in the Department of

Psychology, University of Jyvskyl, Finland. Her research
interests include parent-child interactions, learning and motivation, and parenting and teaching young children.
Kaisa Aunola, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department
of Psychology, University of Jyvskyl, Finland. Her research
interests include family relationships, parenting, and childrens
underachievement and related developmental processes in
school and family context.
Jari-Erik Nurmi, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the
University of Jyvskyl, Finland, and the director of the Finnish
Center of Excellence in Learning and Motivation Research.
His research interests include topics such as motivation and
coping at school, parenting, adolescent socialization, and modeling of developmental processes.
Anna-Maija Poikkeus, PhD, is a professor of early and primary education at the University of Jyvskyl. Her current
interests include developmental follow-up of literacy skills and
motivation, prediction of learning problems, and interactional
processes in the classroom.
Paula Lyytinen, PhD, is a professor of developmental psychology at the University of Jyvskyl, Finland. Her research interests include child language, play, and cognitive development.
Heikki Lyytinen, PhD, is a professor of psychology, head of
the Center of Child Research, and the director of the Jyvskyl
Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia at the University of Jyvskyl,
Finland.