The primary purpose of this study was to compare the working memory performance of monolingual English-speaking second^-grade children with dyslexia (N = 82) to second-grade children with typical development (N = 167). Prior to making group comparisons, it is important to demonstrate invariance between working memory models in both groups or between-group comparisons would not be valid. Thus, we completed invariance testing using a model of working memory that had been validated for children with typical development (Gray et al., 2017) to see if it was valid for children with dyslexia. We tested three types of invariance: configural (does the model test the same constructs?), metric (are the factor loadings equivalent?), and scalar (are the item intercepts the same?). Group comparisons favoured the children with typical development across all three working memory factors. However, differences in the Focus-of-Attention/Visuospatial factor could be explained by group differences in non-verbal intelligence and language skills. In contrast, differences in the Phonological and Central Executive working memory factors remained, even after accounting for non-verbal intelligence and language. Results highlight the need for researchers and educators to attend not only to the phonological aspects of working memory in children with dyslexia, but also to central executive function.

中文翻译：

---

典型发育和阅读障碍儿童的语音工作记忆和中枢执行功能不同

本研究的主要目的是比较单语英语二代的工作记忆表现^——阅读障碍的年级儿童 (N = 82) 到具有典型发育的二年级儿童 (N = 167)。在进行组比较之前，重要的是要证明两组工作记忆模型之间的不变性，否则组间比较将无效。因此，我们使用一个工作记忆模型完成了不变性测试，该模型已针对具有典型发育的儿童进行了验证（Gray 等人，2017），以查看它是否对阅读障碍儿童有效。我们测试了三种类型的不变性：配置（模型是否测试相同的结构？）、度量（因子载荷是否相等？）和标量（项目截距是否相同？）。小组比较有利于在所有三个工作记忆因素中具有典型发展的儿童。然而，注意焦点/视觉空间因素的差异可以通过非语言智力和语言技能的群体差异来解释。相比之下，即使在考虑了非语言智力和语言之后，语音和中央执行工作记忆因素的差异仍然存在。结果强调，研究人员和教育工作者不仅需要关注阅读障碍儿童工作记忆的语音方面，还需要关注中枢执行功能。