Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Psychology Methodology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4 Room 213, 1018 XA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
Ann Dyslexia. 2014 Apr;64(1):34-56. doi: 10.1007/s11881-013-0085-9. Epub 2013 Dec 21.
Methods for identifying dyslexia in adults vary widely between studies. Researchers have to decide how many tests to use, which tests are considered to be the most reliable, and how to determine cut-off scores. The aim of this study was to develop an objective and powerful method for diagnosing dyslexia. We took various methodological measures, most of which are new compared to previous methods. We used a large sample of Dutch first-year psychology students, we considered several options for exclusion and inclusion criteria, we collected as many cognitive tests as possible, we used six independent sources of biographical information for a criterion of dyslexia, we compared the predictive power of discriminant analyses and logistic regression analyses, we used both sum scores and item scores as predictor variables, we used self-report questions as predictor variables, and we retested the reliability of predictions with repeated prediction analyses using an adjusted criterion. We were able to identify 74 dyslexic and 369 non-dyslexic students. For 37 students, various predictions were too inconsistent for a final classification. The most reliable predictions were acquired with item scores and self-report questions. The main conclusion is that it is possible to identify dyslexia with a high reliability, although the exact nature of dyslexia is still unknown. We therefore believe that this study yielded valuable information for future methods of identifying dyslexia in Dutch as well as in other languages, and that this would be beneficial for comparing studies across countries.
方法识别阅读障碍在成年人中差异很大之间的研究。研究人员必须决定使用多少测试,哪些测试被认为是最可靠的,以及如何确定截止分数。本研究的目的是开发一种客观和强大的方法来诊断阅读障碍。我们采取了各种方法措施,其中大部分是新的相比以前的方法。我们使用了一个大样本的荷兰第一年心理学学生,我们考虑了几种选择的排除和纳入标准,我们收集了尽可能多的认知测试,我们使用了六个独立的生物信息源为标准的阅读障碍,我们比较了判别分析和逻辑回归分析的预测能力,我们使用了总分和项目分数作为预测变量,我们使用了自我报告问题作为预测变量,并用调整后的标准进行了重复预测分析,以重新测试预测的可靠性。我们能够识别出 74 名阅读障碍学生和 369 名非阅读障碍学生。对于 37 名学生,各种预测结果对于最终分类来说太不一致了。最可靠的预测是使用项目分数和自我报告问题获得的。主要结论是,虽然阅读障碍的确切性质仍不清楚,但有可能以高可靠性识别阅读障碍。因此,我们认为这项研究为荷兰以及其他语言中识别阅读障碍的未来方法提供了有价值的信息,这将有利于各国之间的研究比较。