A comparison of sighted and visually impaired children's text comprehension.
Blind students outperformed sighted peers on literal text questions, showing memory for exact wording can shine when vision is absent.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Papastergiou et al. (2019) visited a Greek special school.
They gave the same text-comprehension quiz to kids with and without visual impairments.
The task had two kinds of questions: literal and inferential.
What they found
Students who were blind scored higher than sighted classmates.
The edge showed up only on literal questions.
Both groups did the same on questions that needed guessing or inference.
How this fits with other research
Lam et al. (2021) found a mirror result: kids with dyslexia beat peers on non-verbal creativity.
Both papers show a clinical group turning a weakness into a strength.
Martinussen et al. (2015) saw the opposite pattern: teens with ADHD scored lower on reading.
The difference is task type. Athanasia gave braille text; Rhonda used print.
Liu et al. (2023) meta-analysis links poor visual attention to dyslexia.
That deficit may push dyslexic readers to lean on sound, while blind readers lean on memory for exact words.
Why it matters
Do not assume a sensory loss equals a comprehension loss.
When you assess a child who is blind, give credit for strong literal memory.
Use that strength to teach inference skills next.
For mixed groups, pair braille users with print users; each can model the skill the other needs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add literal recall questions first during reading probes to let blind students show strength, then bridge to inference.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AIM: Do children with visual impairments outperform their sighted cohorts in reading and auditory comprehension tasks? METHODS: We address this question by applying panel regression techniques on a comprehensive sample of 16 children with visual impairments from a Greek special school for students with visual impairments. RESULTS: By comparing the reader comprehender profile for both children types, we find that the children with visual impairments perform better than their sighted counterparts. The better performance is supported both unconditionally and conditionally on idiosyncratic characteristics, such as age, text complexity, modality, sex and reading ability. CONCLUSION: Decomposing the reader comprehender profile into a literal, global and local type of questions we find that the results are mainly driven by the superior performance of the children with VI in the literal questions.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2019 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.10.003