Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 Screening and assessment 4.1 Identifying children with dyslexia In the context of this review, the chief purpose of screening and/or assessment is to identify children who require intervention. However, assessment can also play a role in determining which particular intervention programme would be most appropriate, in shaping the delivery of that programme (e.g. starting points, amount of overlearning incorporated, rate of progression expected) and in evaluating the impact of an intervention on a given child or group of children. Traditionally, the task of identifying children with dyslexia was exclusively carried out by educational psychologists, primarily using psychological instruments that were ‘closed tests’ (i.e. restricted to use by qualified psychologists). It is not within the scope of this review to provide a full coverage of the ways in which dyslexic children can be identified by educational psychologists. Detailed descriptions of methods and tests are provided elsewhere (e.g. Beech & Singleton, 1997; Reid, 2003; Thomson, 1990; Turner, 1997). Increasingly, however, teachers are taking on the task of identifying dyslexic pupils, partly because the level of demand stimulated by increased awareness of dyslexia cannot be met by the very limited number of educational psychologists available, but also because of the availability of screening tests and assessment instruments that teachers are entitled to use. The chief focus of this chapter will therefore be on screening and assessment methods that are accessible to teachers. 4.1.1 Intelligence and discrepancy Until relatively recently, the identification of discrepancy between the child’s IQ and their attainments in literacy was a key part of the diagnostic process (see Section 1.2.2 for explanation of the discrepancy criterion). Over the last two decades, however, there has been a growing reaction against the use of IQ in determining dyslexia, largely because poor readers whose reading skills are discrepant from IQ cannot be adequately differentiated from poor readers whose reading skills are not discrepant from IQ (e.g. Fletcher et al., 2002a, 2002b; Joshi, 2003; Lyon, Fletcher & Barnes, 2002; Seigel, 1989; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon & Lyon, 2000). Consequently, therefore, psychologists are tending to place less emphasis on discrepancy and more emphasis on cognitive indicators such as verbal memory, rapid naming and phonological awareness. However, there is a counter-argument in favour of retaining a role for discrepancy: Kavale (2005) and Thompson (2003) argue that there is still a relevant place for discrepancy because only measures of discrepancy can document the unexpected nature of the problem. The existence of a discrepancy indicates the presence of underachievement but only the possibility of dyslexia. 4.1.2 Predictors of reading difficulty and dyslexia Scarborough (1998) carried out a meta-analysis of studies of early predictors of reading difficulties. The results are summarised in Table 8. It can be seen that the strongest predictors include verbal memory, phonological awareness, letter identification, object naming and general language skills. These findings have been replicated in a large number of other studies carried out in several countries (e.g. Boscadin, Muthén, Francis 76 Intervention for Dyslexia
& Baker, 2008; Frost et al., 2005; Puolakanaho et al., 2007; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky & Seidenberg, 2001; Savage, Carless & Ferraro, 2007; Schatschneider et al., 2004; Singleton, Thomas & Horne, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Catts et al. (2001) and Catts and Hagan (2003) developed a battery of tests for kindergarten children that could predict reading difficulties at 2 nd grade level with approximately 90% accuracy. This battery included measures of phonological awareness, rapid automatised naming, sentence imitation and letter identification. Several studies have confirmed that the same predictors can be used to identify children specifically with dyslexia (e.g. Bell, McCallum & Cox, 2003; Elbro, Borstrøm & Petersen, 1998; Olofsson & Neidersøen, 1999). Other factors, including low socioeconomic status, unsupportive home background, or the child having limited experience of English, will all increase the risk of the child having reading difficulties, but in general these factors are less accurate predictors than the ones listed in Table 8 (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). In the context of dyslexia, which current research knowledge indicates is a genetically-based disorder that impacts mainly on the phonological language processing system (see Vellutino & Fletcher, 2005; Vellutino et al., 2004), it seems sensible to focus on indicators that are congruent with aetiology. Table 8. Prediction at school entry of reading difficulties 1–3 years later (adapted from Scarborough, 1998) Predictive factor Number of studies Correlation coefficient Verbal memory 11 0.49 Receptive vocabulary 20 0.33 Object naming 5 0.49 Rapid Automatised Naming 14 0.40 Receptive language 9 0.38 Expressive language 11 0.37 Overall language ability 4 0.47 Phonological awareness 27 0.42 Reading readiness 21 0.56 Letter identification 24 0.52 Concepts about print 7 0.49 Accordingly, Torgesen (1998) advocates that for a simple, practical, screening instrument to identify, at school entry, children at risk of developing reading difficulties, teachers can rely mainly on two tests: (1) a test of knowledge of letter names or sounds, and (2) a test of phonological awareness. As children get older and are exposed to instruction in phonological decoding, research indicates that those that experience Intervention for Dyslexia 77
Page 1 and 2:
Intervention for Dyslexia A review
Page 3 and 4:
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.4 Computer-based screening test
Page 7 and 8:
presuppose any neurological link be
Page 9 and 10:
(0.56 for reading accuracy, 0.91 fo
Page 11 and 12:
instruction in phonics, it cannot b
Page 13 and 14:
Acknowledgements I would like to ex
Page 15 and 16:
The remit calls for conclusions to
Page 17 and 18:
Co-occurring difficulties may be se
Page 19 and 20:
Teacher Status (ATS). In general, c
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. Why use multisensory teach
Page 23 and 24:
pupils are going to be identified a
Page 25 and 26: coloured overlay as the criterion f
Page 27 and 28: have reported standard scores; unfo
Page 29 and 30: 2 Intervention studies in the US an
Page 31 and 32: progressing normally (36 boys and 2
Page 33 and 34: training in phonological awareness,
Page 35 and 36: subtest. All these children were in
Page 37 and 38: intervention identified by Vaughn a
Page 39 and 40: Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Ove
Page 41 and 42: 1. Lindamood Auditory Discriminatio
Page 43 and 44: and writing. Students were taught i
Page 45 and 46: evised as the Lindamood Phoneme Seq
Page 47 and 48: 2.5.10 Torgesen et al. (2004) Torge
Page 49 and 50: period 1995-2003 were identified, a
Page 51 and 52: “The actual reading impairment a
Page 53 and 54: from multisyllabic words. Instructi
Page 55 and 56: 3 UK intervention studies 3.1 Stage
Page 57 and 58: and effect sizes of 0.55 for readin
Page 59 and 60: used Lexia for 10 weeks, after whic
Page 61 and 62: structured phonologically-based sec
Page 63 and 64: 3.3.9 SIDNEY Norgate and Bentote (2
Page 65 and 66: Table 6. Summary of results of UK i
Page 67 and 68: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 69 and 70: Table 6 (continued). Summary of res
Page 71 and 72: 3.4 Studies in UK specialist dyslex
Page 73 and 74: Rack and Walker (1994) presented an
Page 75: probably require some 1:1 teaching
Page 79 and 80: Unlike traditional learning disabil
Page 81 and 82: According to Wolfendale and Bryans
Page 83 and 84: cases). Glascoe and Byrne (1993) ar
Page 85 and 86: Between 1.0 and 1.4: moderate dysle
Page 87 and 88: provided by a study reported in Faw
Page 89 and 90: Against the many advantages of comp
Page 91 and 92: Peer, 1998). A high overall level o
Page 93 and 94: Recently Singleton and Henderson (2
Page 95 and 96: 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Scope 5 Read
Page 97 and 98: 5.1.4 Reading Recovery and the teac
Page 99 and 100: writing. To be able to work on word
Page 101 and 102: success of the programme appears to
Page 103 and 104: in a meta-analysis. However, the av
Page 105 and 106: 5.3.2 Every Child a Reader (ECaR) I
Page 107 and 108: phonological awareness compared wit
Page 109 and 110: (accuracy or comprehension or both)
Page 111 and 112: 5.5.2 Key Stage 1 results of Readin
Page 113 and 114: 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2
Page 115 and 116: ‘accelerated progress’ children
Page 117 and 118: It is not until Level 2b that child
Page 119 and 120: Reading Recovery specifically benef
Page 121 and 122: 6 Computer technology and support o
Page 123 and 124: 6.2.1 The advantages of computer as
Page 125 and 126: and Olson, 2000). Software designed
Page 127 and 128:
new phonic principle was introduced
Page 129 and 130:
impact on reading and spelling, par
Page 131 and 132:
Berninger, V.W., & Hidi, S. (2006)
Page 133 and 134:
Clay, M.M. (1993a) Observation Surv
Page 135 and 136:
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/p
Page 137 and 138:
Frost, J. & Sørensen, P.M. (2007)
Page 139 and 140:
Hatcher, P.J. (2003) Reading Interv
Page 141 and 142:
Kuhn, M.R. & Stahl, S.A. (2003) Flu
Page 143 and 144:
Marks, A. & Burden, B. (2005) How U
Page 145 and 146:
Olofsson, Å (1992) Synthetic speec
Page 147 and 148:
Reason, R. & Boote, R. (1994) Helpi
Page 149 and 150:
Singleton, C.H. (1977) Dyslexia or
Page 151 and 152:
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P. & Molloy,
Page 153 and 154:
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wa
Page 155 and 156:
Vaughn, S. & Roberts, G. (2007) Sec
Page 157:
Wilson, J. & Frederickson, N. (1995
show all

Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?