2016
DOI: 10.1590/1982-0216201618523615
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Instrumentos de avaliação de leitura em adultos: um estudo psicométrico

Abstract: Purpose: to investigate the psychometric properties of a performance test to assess word recognition and a self-reported checklist of reading difficulties/dyslexia indicators in a sample of adults. Methods: participants were 54 subjects, aged 18 to 57 years (M = 24.16, SD = 7.34), with completed high school or attending graduation. The evaluations were performed using the Computerized Test of Word Reading Competence for Adults (TCLP-2) and the self-report questionnaire Adult Dyslexia Checklist (ADC). Results: … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
(22 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pairs can be congruent, in which case the spoken word and written word are identical, or incongruent, in accordance with specific types of errors in the written words. The incongruent pairs are of four types: written words with visual changes of letter position in the word, letter omission, word with phonological changes, and words with visual confusion of letters ( de Oliveira et al, 2009 ; de Oliveira, 2014 ; Oliveira et al, 2014 ; Dias et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pairs can be congruent, in which case the spoken word and written word are identical, or incongruent, in accordance with specific types of errors in the written words. The incongruent pairs are of four types: written words with visual changes of letter position in the word, letter omission, word with phonological changes, and words with visual confusion of letters ( de Oliveira et al, 2009 ; de Oliveira, 2014 ; Oliveira et al, 2014 ; Dias et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%