Wood Frank B, Hill Deborah F, Meyer Marianne S, Flowers D Lynn
Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1043, USA.
Ann Dyslexia. 2005 Dec;55(2):193-216. doi: 10.1007/s11881-005-0011-x.
Study 1 retrospectively analyzed neuropsychological and psychoeducational tests given to N=220 first graders, with follow-up assessments in third and eighth grade. Four predictor constructs were derived: (1) Phonemic Awareness, (2) Picture Vocabulary, (3) Rapid Naming, and (4) Single Word Reading. Together, these accounted for 88%, 76%, 69%, and 69% of the variance, respectively, in first, third, and eighth grade Woodcock Johnson Broad Reading and eighth grade Gates-MacGinitie. When Single Word Reading was excluded from the predictors, the remaining predictors still accounted for 71%, 65%, 61%, and 65% of variance in the respective outcomes. Secondary analyses of risk of low outcome showed sensitivities/specificities of 93.0/91.0, and 86.4/84.9, respectively, for predicting which students would be in the bottom 15% and 30% of actual first grade WJBR. Sensitivities/specificities were 84.8/83.3 and 80.2/81.3, respectively, for predicting the bottom 15% and 30% of actual third grade WJBR outcomes; eighth grade outcomes had sensitivities/specificities of 80.0/80.0 and 85.7/83.1, respectively, for the bottom 15% and 30% of actual eighth grade WJBR scores. Study 2 cross-validated the concurrent predictive validities in an N=500 geographically diverse sample of late kindergartners through third graders, whose ethnic and racial composition closely approximated the national early elementary school population. New tests of the same four predictor domains were used, together taking only 15 minutes to administer by teachers; the new Woodcock-Johnson III Broad Reading standard score was the concurrent criterion, whose testers were blind to the predictor results. This cross-validation showed 86% of the variance accounted for, using the same regression weights as used in Study 1. With these weights, sensitivity/specificity values for the 15% and 30% thresholds were, respectively, 91.3/88.0 and 94.1/89.1. These validities and accuracies are stronger than others reported for similar intervals in the literature.
研究1回顾性分析了对220名一年级学生进行的神经心理学和心理教育测试,并在三年级和八年级进行了随访评估。得出了四个预测指标:(1)音素意识,(2)图片词汇,(3)快速命名,以及(4)单字阅读。这些指标分别解释了一年级、三年级和八年级伍德科克-约翰逊综合阅读测试成绩以及八年级盖茨-麦吉尼蒂阅读测试成绩中88%、76%、69%和69%的方差。当从预测指标中排除单字阅读时,其余指标仍分别解释了相应结果中方差的71%、65%、61%和65%。对低成绩风险的二次分析显示,预测哪些学生在实际一年级伍德科克-约翰逊综合阅读测试成绩的后15%和30%时,敏感度/特异度分别为93.0/91.0和86.4/84.9。预测实际三年级伍德科克-约翰逊综合阅读测试成绩的后15%和30%时,敏感度/特异度分别为84.8/83.3和80.2/81.3;对于八年级的成绩,预测实际八年级伍德科克-约翰逊综合阅读测试成绩的后15%和30%时,敏感度/特异度分别为80.0/80.0和85.7/83.1。研究2在一个由500名来自不同地理位置的幼儿园大班至三年级学生组成的样本中对同时预测效度进行了交叉验证,这些学生的种族和民族构成与全国小学低年级学生群体相近。使用了相同的四个预测领域的新测试,教师完成测试仅需15分钟;新的伍德科克-约翰逊III综合阅读标准分数作为同时标准,测试人员对预测结果不知情。这次交叉验证显示,使用与研究1相同的回归权重,方差解释率为86%。根据这些权重,15%和30%阈值的敏感度/特异度值分别为91.3/88.0和94.1/89.1。这些效度和准确性比文献中报道的类似区间的其他结果更强。