Tamboer Peter, Vorst Harrie C M
University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychological Methods, Weesperplein 4, Room 218, 1018 XA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dyslexia. 2015 Feb;21(1):1-34. doi: 10.1002/dys.1492.
The validity of a Dutch self-report inventory of dyslexia was ascertained in two samples of students. Six biographical questions, 20 general language statements and 56 specific language statements were based on dyslexia as a multi-dimensional deficit. Dyslexia and non-dyslexia were assessed with two criteria: identification with test results (Sample 1) and classification using biographical information (both samples). Using discriminant analyses, these criteria were predicted with various groups of statements. All together, 11 discriminant functions were used to estimate classification accuracy of the inventory. In Sample 1, 15 statements predicted the test criterion with classification accuracy of 98%, and 18 statements predicted the biographical criterion with classification accuracy of 97%. In Sample 2, 16 statements predicted the biographical criterion with classification accuracy of 94%. Estimations of positive and negative predictive value were 89% and 99%. Items of various discriminant functions were factor analysed to find characteristic difficulties of students with dyslexia, resulting in a five-factor structure in Sample 1 and a four-factor structure in Sample 2. Answer bias was investigated with measures of internal consistency reliability. Less than 20 self-report items are sufficient to accurately classify students with and without dyslexia. This supports the usefulness of self-assessment of dyslexia as a valid alternative to diagnostic test batteries.
在两组学生样本中确定了一份荷兰语诵读困难自我报告量表的有效性。六个传记性问题、20条通用语言陈述和56条特定语言陈述都基于诵读困难是一种多维度缺陷这一观点。诵读困难和非诵读困难通过两个标准进行评估:依据测试结果进行识别(样本1)以及使用传记信息进行分类(两个样本均采用)。通过判别分析,用不同组别的陈述对这些标准进行预测。总共使用11个判别函数来估计该量表的分类准确性。在样本1中,15条陈述预测测试标准的分类准确率为98%,18条陈述预测传记标准的分类准确率为97%。在样本2中,16条陈述预测传记标准的分类准确率为94%。阳性和阴性预测值的估计分别为89%和99%。对各种判别函数的项目进行因子分析,以找出诵读困难学生的特征性困难,结果在样本1中得到一个五因素结构,在样本2中得到一个四因素结构。通过内部一致性信度测量来研究回答偏差。少于20个自我报告项目就足以准确区分有诵读困难和无诵读困难的学生。这支持了将诵读困难自我评估作为诊断测试组合的有效替代方法的实用性。