Milburn Trelani F, Lonigan Christopher J, Allan Darcey M, Phillips Beth M
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University.
Department of Psychology and Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University.
Learn Individ Differ. 2017 Apr;55:120-129. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.011.
To investigate approaches for identifying young children who may be at risk for later reading-related learning disabilities, this study compared the use of four contemporary methods of indexing learning disability (LD) with older children (i.e., IQ-achievement discrepancy, low achievement, low growth, and dual-discrepancy) to determine risk status with a large sample of 1,011 preschoolers. These children were classified as at risk or not using each method across three early-literacy skills (i.e., language, phonological awareness, print knowledge) and at three levels of severity (i.e., 5th, 10th, 25th percentiles). Chance-corrected affected-status agreement (CCASA) indicated poor agreement among methods with rates of agreement generally decreasing with greater levels of severity for both single- and two-measure classification, and agreement rates were lower for two-measure classification than for single-measure classification. These low rates of agreement between conventional methods of identifying children at risk for LD represent a significant impediment for identification and intervention for young children considered at-risk.
为了研究识别可能存在后期阅读相关学习障碍风险的幼儿的方法，本研究将四种当代学习障碍（LD）索引方法与年龄较大儿童的方法（即智商-成就差异、低成就、低增长和双重差异）进行了比较，以确定1011名学龄前儿童的大样本中的风险状况。这些儿童根据三种早期识字技能（即语言、语音意识、印刷知识）和三种严重程度水平（即第5、第10、第25百分位数），使用每种方法被分类为有风险或无风险。机会校正的受影响状态一致性（CCASA）表明，方法之间的一致性较差，对于单指标和双指标分类，一致性率通常随着严重程度的增加而降低，并且双指标分类的一致性率低于单指标分类。这些识别LD风险儿童的传统方法之间的低一致性率，对识别和干预被认为有风险的幼儿构成了重大障碍。
