Differences in Errors Between Students With Language and Reading Disabilities

Abstract

Children with a specific learning disability in reading/writing (LDRW) and/or language impairment (LI) are likely to have difficulties across all areas of academic achievement, as a great deal of teaching and learning depends on intact reading skill and linguistic communication. Despite a large number of studies examining academic difficulties among these groups, there has been minimal research investigating types of errors made on tests of academic achievement. The present study compared academic error types of children with LDRW (Group 1) and children with LI (Group 3) to two distinct demographically matched control groups (Groups 2 and 4) using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. Findings indicate that children in the LDRW group or LI group, on average, made a greater number of errors than their matched counterparts. Statistically significant differences, with moderate effect sizes, were found between examinees in the clinical groups and their respective matched control groups across several error categories. Some of the largest differences were found in the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. Most importantly, the patterns of errors made by LDRW and LI samples differed notably on the various tasks, providing new insights about these clinical samples.

Identifying dyslexia with confirmatory latent profile analysis

“…While CLPA may be intuitively useful for diagnosis, it certainly is not the answer to all diagnostic problems. Related to our study, the model only includes test scores, not history, other types of assessment (e.g., curriculum‐based measures or classroom performance), qualitative information about test performance, or error analysis that may be useful in differentiating those with and without reading disabilities (e.g., Avitia et al, ). Test scores and probabilities obtained through CLPA are only one piece of information that may be useful in making a diagnostic decision.…”

Translation and Transcription Processes in the Writing Skills of Children With Developmental Language Disorder

“…Reviewers are asked to assess potential study bias in Question 8 of the assessment (Kmet et al, 2004). One study (3%) received a score of 1 (Avitia et al, 2017), whereas the remaining 38 studies received a score of 2 for this item.…”

Implications of Error Analysis Studies for Academic Interventions

“…Avitia, Pagirsky, and colleagues (2017) examined the errors of two clinical groups: those with specific learning disabilities in reading and writing (LDRW) and those with a language impairment (LI). As would be expected, both clinical groups made more errors than the matched controls across several error categories.…”