A study of factors involved in early identification of specific language disability

Oliphant, Genevieve G.

doi:10.1007/bf02653641

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to these authors, the study supports the validity of the Slingerland Screening Tests for identification of LD children. In another study (Oliphant 1969) scores on the Stanford Achievement Tests and Slingerland Screening Tests were compared for a group of first-graders. Based on a correlation coefficient of .57-.65, it was concluded that the Slingerland Screening Tests are useful predictive instruments, again supporting the validity of the instrument.…”

Section: The Slingerland Screening Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Meyers

1983

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of an information processing model for diagnosing and remediating learning disabled children is the focus of much debate. Although this approach is widely practiced in classrooms, advocated by many leaders in the field, and included in federal definitions, the empirical literature is not supportive, and many researchers are ready to dismiss its validity. One of the problems associated with this approach is the assessment instruments. This article reviews both sides of this controversy and suggests the use of the Slingerland Screening Tests as an alternative diagnostic tool for examining information processing skills. A brief overview of this test is presented as well as a discussion of advantages and purposes relevant to the information processing approach. Implications for subsequent research are suggested.T he information processing, model for determining appropriate instructional methods and materials for learning disabled children is currently under serious scrutiny. This model has provided a foundation for the diagnosis, planning, and instruction implementation for many years in the learning disabilities field. The components of this model have been given a variety of labels including "perceptual skills," "learning modalities," "learning styles," and "information processing skills." The focus, regardless of terminology, is on methods of learning-including input or receiving information, integration, and output or expression. The popular theories suggest that an individual's strengths and weaknesses in these skills must be determined through various diagnostic procedures in order to plan and implement appropriate instructional strategies and remedial techniques. For example, a visual learner should be provided instruction with a visual emphasis (i.e., sight word approach.to reading). An auditory learner, on the other hand, would benefit from an auditory approach such as phonics.A conflict, however, exists between research and the learning disabilities theories and educational procedures advocated by some authorities. Empirical evidence does not support differential instruction based on preferred learning styles, and yet this approach is still practiced widely in the schools, discussed in major texts, and emphasized in teachertraining programs. It appears that this model has a strong intuitive value for practitioners in spite of the empirical literature's criticism.Further acceptance of this theory in practice can be seen in the terminology of federal and, in some cases, state definitions and guidelines concerning LD children. The current federal regulations describe learning disabilities in terms of psychological processing disorders. Several states also have incorporated this focus into their definitions. Still, the diagnostic and remedial methods used to operationalize these descriptions have been strongly criticized (Torgesen 1979) so that further research is needed to substantiate this approach to diagnosis and instruction. INFORMATION PROCESSING CONTROVERSYA brief review of the literature...

show abstract

Section: The Slingerland Screening Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Meyers

1983

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tests are lauded for attempting to provide information which is relevant to the kinds of instructional decisions teachers are required to make (Deno 1972). Proger (1971) notes that the results of the school related tasks of the tests are easier for teachers to use than are the results of diagnostic tools such as the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability (ITPA). Like the ITPA, the Slingerland Screening Tests attempt to assess modalities of communication, but unlike the ITPA this assessment i s administered within the context of realistic school situations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Keogh and Becker (1973) note that, similar to many other screening devices in routine use in school districts, the Slingerland Screening Tests are of questionable reliability and validity. The absence of data on reliability and validity has been considered a major flaw of these tests (Proger 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Slingerland Screening Tests

Burns

1977

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to increase the utility of the Slingerland Screening Tests, percentile rank norms were calculated for 2272 elementary school students in grades K through 6. Tables of norms are presented for key percentile ranks. Separate tables of norms were calculated for males and females since significant mean sex differences were found. The split-half reliability coefficients obtained lend firm support to the notion that the tests are reliable.

show abstract

Auditory perception and reading disability

Oliphant

1972

Bulletin of the Orton Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study of factors involved in early identification of specific language disability

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

The Slingerland Screening Tests

Auditory perception and reading disability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About