Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: a response to Chaski

In response to Chaski’s article (published in this volume) an examination is made of the methodological understanding necessary to identify dependable markers for forensic (and general) authorship attribution work. This examination concentrates on three methodological areas of concern which researchers intending to identify markers of authorship must address. These areas are sampling linguistic data, establishing the reliability of authorship markers and establishing the validity of authorship markers. It is suggested that the complexity of sampling problems in linguistic data is often underestimated and that theoretical issues in this area are both difficult and unresolved. It is further argued that the concepts of reliability and validity must be well understood and accounted for in any attempts to identify authorship markers and that largely this is not done. Finally, Principal Component Analysis is identified as an alternative approach which avoids some of the methodological problems inherent in identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship.

What drives the prediction of early reading? An analysis of stimulus and response-type

Purpose: Phonological accounts of reading implicate three aspects of phonological awareness tasks that underlie the relationship with reading; a) the language-based nature of the stimuli (words or nonwords), b) the verbal nature of the response, and c) the complexity of the stimuli (words can be segmented into units of speech). Yet, it is uncertain which task characteristics are most important as they are typically confounded. By systematically varying response-type and stimulus complexity across speech and non-speech stimuli, the current study seeks to isolate the characteristics of phonological awareness tasks that drive the prediction of early reading. Method: Four sets of tasks were created; tone stimuli (simple non-speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes (simple speech) requiring a non-verbal response, phonemes requiring a verbal response, and nonwords (complex speech) requiring a verbal response. Tasks were administered to 570 2nd grade children along with standardized tests of reading and non-verbal IQ. Results: Three structural equation models comparing matched sets of tasks were built. Each model consisted of two 'task' factors with a direct link to a reading factor. The following factors predicted unique variance in reading: a) simple speech and non-speech stimuli, b) simple speech requiring a verbal response but not simple speech requiring a non-verbal-response, and c) complex and simple speech stimuli. Conclusions: Results suggest that the prediction of reading by phonological tasks is driven by the verbal nature of the response and not the complexity or 'speechness' of the stimuli. Findings highlight the importance of phonological output processes to early reading.

Deconstructing phonological tasks:the contribution of stimulus and response type to the prediction of early decoding skills

Abstract Phonological tasks are highly predictive of reading development but their complexity obscures the underlying mechanisms driving this association. There are three key components hypothesised to drive the relationship between phonological tasks and reading; (a) the linguistic nature of the stimuli, (b) the phonological complexity of the stimuli, and (c) the production of a verbal response. We isolated the contribution of the stimulus and response components separately through the creation of latent variables to represent specially designed tasks that were matched for procedure. These tasks were administered to 570 6 to 7-year-old children along with standardised tests of regular word and non-word reading. A structural equation model, where tasks were grouped according to stimulus, revealed that the linguistic nature and the phonological complexity of the stimulus predicted unique variance in decoding, over and above matched comparison tasks without these components. An alternative model, grouped according to response mode, showed that the production of a verbal response was a unique predictor of decoding beyond matched tasks without a verbal response. In summary, we found that multiple factors contributed to reading development, supporting multivariate models over those that prioritize single factors. More broadly, we demonstrate the value of combining matched task designs with latent variable modelling to deconstruct the components of complex tasks.