依據Wolf’s雙瓜缺陷假說，唸名五度很可能是造成閱讀障礙的原因之一，本研究因此想要了解閱讀障礙學生與控制組學生在七種不同唸名五度測驗上的表現差異。研究者蒐集了閱讀障礙組與兩組控制組—同齡配對組與同閱讀能力配對組褣行七種不同唸名速度的測驗。每組學生都有31名，年齡從九歲到十二歲。閱障組是依現行鑑定標準選出的，兩組控制組以一對一的配對方式找出，他們與閱障組有相同的性別、社經地位和智力水準。所有學生皆接受唸名速度測驗及認字、閱讀理解等國語文能力相關測驗。 研究結果顯示，閱障組在七個名速度測驗皆比同齡組慢。閱障組與同閱組的比較中也有三個分測達顯著差異水準，這些結果顯示唸名速度有可能是影響閱讀的原因。本研究設計中的同閱組與閱障組有相同的閱讀能力，因此排除了閱讀能力影響唸名的可能性。因此，說障組與同閱組在唸名速度的差異，並不能解釋是來自閱讀能力的影響。在相關研究中發現，名速度與中文識字的相關程度遠高於與閱讀理解的相關。這個研究再度支持了唸名在中文閱讀歷程的重要意義。

Based on wolf’s double deficit hypothesis, the researcher compared mean differences of various rapid autonomized naming speeds between a reading-disabled (RD) group and two control groups matched with age and reading level respectively. The RD group was composed of 31 students, aged 9 to 12, who had severe difficulties in reading comprehension and Chinese character recognition. Among the groups, demographic variables such as gender, social economic status, and class were controlled by careful case-by-case matching procedures. All participants received 7 tests that measured different naming speeds. Scores on a Chinese character recognition test and a reading comprehension test were also collected as dependent measures. The major findings are as follows. 1.Naming speeds in different groups: AMs significantly outperformed the RDs on every naming speeds. RM’s 7 naming speed means were all shorter than AMs’, although only three out of the 7 comparisons reached the significant level. These evidences show that RDs have great difficulties on rapid naming tasks, and the difficulties are not a result of poor reading ability because the reading ability was controlled between RD and RM groups. 2.Correlations among naming speeds and reading abilities: Six out of the seven naming speeds of RDs, correlated significantly with character recognition. In AM and RM groups, however, only 2 and 4 naming speeds, respectively, correlated with character recognition. It is a common belief that that the rapid naming task tends for low-level decoding automaticity. Therefore, when readers reach the automaticity at a certain level, as the AM group do, the correlations between naming speeds and reading abilities diminish. It is not surprising that the correlations among naming speeds and reading comprehension were not significant because reading comprehension is a high level process and has only indirect relationship with naming task.