Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(age range 6–11) and a secondary form DST-S (age range 11-16). Both tests comprise 12–13 short subtests, some of which were added after the original versions were published; a breakdown is shown in Table 9. Table 9. Subtests of the Dyslexia Early Screening Test and the Dyslexia Screening Test Dyslexia Early Screening Test (age 4½ – 6½ years) Dyslexia Screening Test (Junior version) (age 6½– 11 years) Dyslexia Screening Test (Secondary version) (age 11 – 16 years) Rapid Naming Rapid Naming Rapid Naming Bead Threading Bead Threading Bead Threading Phonological discrimination One Minute Reading One Minute Reading Postural stability Postural Stability Postural Stability Rhyme/Alliteration Phonemic Segmentation Phonemic Segmentation Forwards digit span Two Minute Spelling Two Minute Spelling Digit naming Backwards Digit Span Backwards Digit Span Letter naming Nonsense Passage Reading Nonsense Passage Reading Sound order One Minute Writing One Minute Writing Shape copying Verbal Fluency Verbal Fluency Visual sequential memory* Rhyme* Semantic Fluency Vocabulary* Vocabulary* Spoonerisms* Non-verbal Reasoning* * subtests that were added subsequent to the first version of the test. The principle behind DEST and DST is that all these subtests, with the exception of those in the general ability category, are potential indicators of dyslexia (‘dyslexia sensitive tests’), and hence the greater the amount of difficulty experienced in these subtests, the higher the risk of dyslexia. DEST and DST do not provide results in conventional standardised score form; instead the raw scores on the dyslexia sensitive tests are converted to scaled scores (which have been derived from z scores 9 ), and these are then summed and divided by the number of tests to arrive at an At Risk Quotient (ARQ), which specifies the degree of risk of dyslexia. Validation of DEST was 9 Z scores (sometimes called ‘standard deviation units’) are a measure of the distance of a given raw score from the mean. A z score of –1.0 is one standard deviation below the mean; on a conventionally standardised test (i.e. one with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15) this would be equivalent to a standard score of 85. Correspondingly, a z score of +2.0 would be two standard deviations above the mean (equivalent to SS 130). 86 Intervention for Dyslexia
provided by a study reported in Fawcett, Singleton & Peer (1998), in which an accuracy of 90% in predicting reading difficulties at age 8 was found. The DEST and DST are both individually administered tests and take 30–45 minutes to administer, and both encompass a wide range of assessment components, which can be loosely divided into five categories, as shown in Table 10. Table 10. Classification of the DEST and DST subtests into different assessment areas. Assessment area Subtests Phonology and language Rapid Naming; Phonological Discrimination; Rhyme/Alliteration; Sound Order; Phonemic Segmentation; Rhyme; Spoonerisms; Semantic Fluency Literacy Letter Naming; One Minute Reading; Two Minute Spelling; One Minute Writing; Nonsense Passage Reading Memory and processing speed Forwards Digit Span; Backwards Digit Span; Visual Sequential Memory; Digit Naming Coordination Bead Threading; Shape Copying; Postural Stability General ability Vocabulary; Non-verbal Reasoning The subtests in the first three areas (phonology and language; literacy; memory and processing speed) are consistent with the generally accepted view that dyslexia arises from a fundamental difficulty in phonological processing (see Vellutino et al., 2004; Vellutino & Fletcher, 2005), and arguably there would be little controversy about their inclusion in a screening battery of this nature. The subtests in the general ability area are not indicators of dyslexia and, indeed, would not necessarily be expected to be impaired in dyslexia. They provide measures with which the dyslexia indicators can be contrasted and, in effect, introduce an informal discrepancy criterion into the test (see Section 4.1.1 for discussion of discrepancy criterion). However, the subtests in the fourth area (coordination) are rather more controversial. The inclusion of these subtests was as a direct result of the authors’ own research, the findings of which suggested, first, that dyslexics are likely to be impaired in motor skills and coordination (Nicolson and Fawcett, 1990) and subsequently that dyslexic children showed impaired performance on a range of cerebellar tasks (Fawcett, Nicolson and Dean, 1996). These studies revealed that children with dyslexia suffered deficits not only in phonological skill but also in picture naming speed, bead threading and balance. Nicolson and Fawcett (1999) have argued that such deficits are consistent with a cerebellar impairment, and proposed that since the cerebellum is involved in developing ‘language dexterity’ the cerebellar deficit hypothesis provides a causal explanation for dyslexia, subsuming the phonological deficit model (Snowling, 2000; Vellutino et al., 2004) within a broader framework. Critics of the cerebellar deficit hypothesis (e.g. Ramus, 2003; Ramus, Pidgeon & Frith, 2003) have argued that a wealth of convergent evidence from brain scanning (Price & McCory, 2005), genetic studies (Pennington & Olson, 2005) and cognitive experiments (Vellutino & Fletcher, 2005) all point to deficits not in the cerebellum but in those areas of the cortex concerned with phonological processing and the integration of symbolic Intervention for Dyslexia 87
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 and 76: probably require some 1:1 teaching
Page 77 and 78: & Baker, 2008; Frost et al., 2005;
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: Between 1.0 and 1.4: moderate dysle
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?