The Slingerland Screening Tests

The basic assumptions underlying the development of early identification procedures are reviewed. The effectiveness of screening measures designed to identify educationally "at risk" children is critically examined. It is concluded that there is a general lack of evidence for the usefulness of such instruments. The implications of these findings are considered, and an alternative strategy of action based on the use of sequences of educational objectives rather than predictive instruments is proposed.T here is no doubt that a major growth area in education over recent years has been the early identification of children experiencing or likely to experience learning difficulties. While major interest in this area began in the 1960s in the United States, it has been within the past decade that work in England has proliferated. In 1972 a survey carried out by the Department of Education and Science (DES) reported that 25% of local education authorities (LEAs) carry out some form of educational screening, although this estimate also included surveys of educational attainment. In 1976 Makins reported that 47% of LEAs were using screening procedures and an additional 27% were planning to implement them.Official impetus to such endeavours has been provided by government reports, particularly that of the Bullock Committee (DES 1975) and more recently the Warnock Committee (DES 1978). However, while support for the aims underlying such procedures has grown and the production of instruments designed for the purpose has proliferated, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the procedures has not been so prevalent. One reason is that in England at least the majority of procedures have been initiated locally by practitioners (educational psychologists, educational advisers) with limited resources for large-scale studies.However, the need for a more critical evaluation of the early identification of children with learning difficulties has become increasingly apparent. If such procedures result in certain children being allocated to or deprived of particular resources, then an evaluation of their accuracy and usefulness is necessary.The purpose of this paper is first to examine the basic assumptions underlying the development of early identification procedures, and then to consider the evidence about the validity of the various types of procedure. In the final part of the paper, we consider the implications of the foregoing for achieving the aims of early identification.

Section: Educational Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Early Identification of Educationally ‘At Risk’ Children Revisited

Lindsay¹,

Wedell

1982

“…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. In terms of reliability data, Burns and Burns (1977) tested all students in kindergarten through grade 6 in one school. Using a split-half reliability coefficient, they supported the Slingerland as a diagnostic instrument.…”

Section: The Slingerland Screening Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Meyers

1983

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...

“…Burns and Burns (1977) published an article describing their development of local norms on the SST. Based on split-half reliability coefficients, they concluded that the tests were reliable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Slingerland Method With LD Youngsters

Lovitt

DeMier²

1984

This was a study to compare the reading gains of students who received Slingerland instruction with others enrolled in a class based on the Sullivan reading program. There were seven learning-disabled pupils who ranged in age from 6-7 to 9-11 in each class.Ten before and after treatment measures were obtained, and seven were gathered each day of the program. Analysis of the data indicated that the youngsters in both groups made substantial gains. They also showed that pupils in the Slingerland class out performed their Sullivan-instructed mates on some measures, whereas performances of the Sullivan-taught youngsters were better for an equal number of different measures. Discussion relates to possible reasons for the improvement of both groups, to reasons which may account for the popularity of the Slingerland method, and to directions for future research on the Slingerland program. W hen it comes to teaching learningdisabled (LD) youngsters to read, many techniques are advocated. This is particularly true in respect to the instruction of initial reading. There are those who support the Frostig program; others recommend the words in Color method. Some teachers believe that the Distar approach should be used. Still others support the use of basal series such as Lippincott, Ginn, or Houghton Mifflin. The approach which stimulated this research was the Slingerland method, a technique first used in Renton, Washington. Beth Slingerland, its originator, studied with Anna Gillingham who had earlier received instruction from SamuelOrton. The Orton, and later the Gillingham approaches to teaching reading were multi-sensory. They supported the notion that dyslexic children could best learn to read if their instruction was provided through at least three channels: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. The techniques they designed were intended for tutorial situations; that is, one teacher and one pupil. Slingerland accepted the multisensory notions toward reading instruction and adapted them so that specially trained teachers could use them with large groups of youngsters.She began the first Slingerland classes in Renton for specific language disability (SLD) 1 children in 1960. At that time there were three classes which served about 75 children. During the 1981-82 year there were about 30 classes and 600 children involved in Slingerland teaching.Since the first classes began in Renton, programs for SLD youngsters have been established throughout the Seattle area. In the Shoreline district, for example, classrooms of that type began in 1972. In the 1981-82 school year there were 42 classes with an enrollment of about 1,000 youngsters. It is estimated that today in the Puget Sound area there are 200 Slingerland classes which serve 4,000 youngsters. These children range in age from six to 18. The Slingerland method has been used in other parts of Washington and throughout the United States.One reason which accounts for the Many of these students are identified in kindergarten with the Slingerland Screening Test (SST). They are t...