Verpalen Anick, Van de Vijver Fons, Backus Ad
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands.
Ann Dyslexia. 2018 Apr;68(1):43-68. doi: 10.1007/s11881-018-0155-0. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
We set out to address the adequacy of dyslexia screening in Dutch and non-western immigrant children, using the Dutch Dyslexia Screening Test (DST-NL) and outcomes of the Dutch dyslexia protocol, both of which are susceptible to cultural bias. Using the protocol as standard, we conducted an ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristics) analysis in Dutch and immigrant third, fifth, and seventh graders, combining a cross-sectional and longitudinal design. Sensitivity and specificity increased with grade, but were non-significant for various subtests in the lowest grade, suggesting considerable non-convergence between the two measures. Effective subtests in all grades, presumably not strongly influenced by Cultural Background or Word Lexicon, were One-Minute Reading, Non-Word Reading, and Nonsense Passage Reading. In a multilevel analysis, cultural background, dyslexia diagnosis, parental education, and grade of first assessment were predictors of subtest performance. In a second analysis, Word Lexicon was added as a proxy of knowledge of the Dutch language and culture. After controlling for Word Lexicon, cultural background became significant for most subtests, suggesting the presence of cultural bias. Subtests assessing technical literacy, such as One-Minute-Reading, Non-Word-Reading, One-Minute-Writing, or Two-Minutes-Spelling, showed more convergence between the two assessments. Less-effective subtests were Naming Pictures, Backward Digit Span, and Verbal and Semantic Fluency. It is concluded that the DST-NL and the standard protocol do not show complete convergence, notably in the lower grades in the multilingual pupil group of our cohort, mainly because dyslexia and literacy difficulties are hard to disentangle.
我们着手研究荷兰及非西方移民儿童的诵读困难筛查是否充分,采用了荷兰诵读困难筛查测试(DST-NL)以及荷兰诵读困难诊断流程的结果,这两者都容易受到文化偏见的影响。以该诊断流程为标准,我们对荷兰及移民背景的三年级、五年级和七年级学生进行了ROC(受试者工作特征)分析,采用了横断面研究和纵向研究相结合的设计。敏感性和特异性随年级升高而增加,但在最低年级的各个子测试中并不显著,这表明两种测量方法之间存在相当大的不一致。在所有年级中有效的子测试,大概不受文化背景或词汇量的强烈影响,包括一分钟阅读、非单词阅读和无意义段落阅读。在多层次分析中,文化背景、诵读困难诊断、父母教育程度和首次评估的年级是子测试表现的预测因素。在第二项分析中,增加了词汇量作为荷兰语言和文化知识的代表。在控制了词汇量之后,文化背景对大多数子测试来说变得显著,这表明存在文化偏见。评估技术素养的子测试,如一分钟阅读、非单词阅读、一分钟写作或两分钟拼写,在两种评估之间显示出更多的一致性。效果较差的子测试包括图片命名、倒背数字广度以及语言和语义流畅性。研究得出结论,DST-NL和标准诊断流程并未完全一致,特别是在我们队列中的多语言学生群体的低年级中,主要是因为诵读困难和读写困难难以区分。