A Comparison of Multiple Methods for the Identification of Children with Reading Disabilities

Abstract

There has been considerable discussion of the methods used for the identification of children with reading disabilities. This study examined three different methods that could be used in the identification of children with reading disabilities and their consistency with teacher ratings of behaviors believed to be associated with reading disabilities. Standardized, norm-referenced measures of achievement, phonological processing measures, and curriculum-based measures of reading fluency were used with 40 children in Grades 1 and 2. Comparisons were made to determine which measures, if any, differentiated between children referred for reading disabilities (n = 20) and children who were progressing typically in reading in their general education classroom settings (n = 20). The results indicated significant between-group differences on standardized, norm-referenced measures of reading recognition, word attack, and comprehension; phonological measures of blending nonwords and elision; and reading fluency. Teacher ratings on the Dyslexia Screening Instrument were consistent with teacher beliefs regarding children's progress in reading. All measures were found to correlate significantly with each other. However, correlations were generally in the moderate range, suggesting that the measures used did not measure the same reading skills or, in the case of phonological processing, the underlying abilities believed to be necessary for reading. Given the differences in tasks and the moderate correlations, it is likely that the choice of measures may affect the conclusions reached regarding a student's reading ability.

Telephone Testing and Teacher Assessment of Reading Skills in 7-year-olds: I. Substantial Correspondence for a Sample of 5544 Children and for Extremes

“…There is relatively little direct research on the validity of teacher assessment, and much of it has been directed toward a somewhat different question, whether teachers can accurately identify children who will have continuing difficulties in reading (Flynn & Rahbar, 1998;Kenny & Chakaluk, 1993). Nevertheless, positive concurrent relationships between teacher ratings or grades and tests have frequently been obtained (see Hoge & Coladarci, 1989, for a review; also Sofie & Riccio, 2002). A major limitation in this area has been the lack of fully developed, standardized teacher assessment measures with known psychometric properties.…”

Independent Validation and Clinical Utility Study of the Hellenic WISC-III Using a Greek-Cypriot Sample

“…Here, teachers´ ratings were used instead of school grades because no formal grading system exists for students in the primary education. The validity of teachers' judgments compared to standardized achievement scores was verified in many studies (e.g., Kenny & Chekaluk, 1993;Sofie & Riccio, 2002). The utility of teachers as tests has been supported in the Cyprus context as well (Vrachimi-Souroulla, Panayiotou & Kokkinos, 2009).…”

Virtudes y defectos en la identificación de las dificultades lectoras

“…Utilizando la misma prueba (CTOPP), Sofie y Riccio (2002) estudiaron las relaciones entre pruebas normalizadas de lectura, medidas de conciencia fonológica e índices de fluidez (CBM, subtest de Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised, WJ-R) y la relación de estas medidas con las valoraciones de los maestros. Los autores sostenían que, además de las medidas tradicionales de nivel lector referenciadas por normas, las medidas de conciencia fonológica y de la fluidez lectora aportan más información y pueden ser incluidas como parte de la valoración lectora.…”