Journal of Learning Disabilities

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sofie, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Riccio, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sofie, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Riccio, C. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 35, No. 3, 234-244 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/002221940203500305

A Comparison of Multiple Methods for the Identification of Children with Reading Disabilities

Cecilia A. Sofie

The University of Alabama

Cynthia A. Riccio

University of Georgia

There has been considerable discussion of the methods used for the identification of children with reading disabilities. This study examined three different methods that could be used in the identification of children with reading disabilities and their consistency with teacher ratings of behaviors believed to be associated with reading disabilities. Standardized, norm-referenced measures of achievement, phonological processing measures, and curriculum-based measures of reading fluency were used with 40 children in Grades 1 and 2. Comparisons were made to determine which measures, if any, differentiated between children referred for reading disabilities (n = 20) and children who were progressing typically in reading in their general education classroom settings (n = 20). The results indicated significant between-group differences on standardized, norm-referenced measures of reading recognition, word attack, and comprehension; phonological measures of blending nonwords and elision; and reading fluency. Teacher ratings on the Dyslexia Screening Instrument were consistent with teacher beliefs regarding children's progress in reading. All measures were found to correlate significantly with each other. However, correlations were generally in the moderate range, suggesting that the measures used did not measure the same reading skills or, in the case of phonological processing, the underlying abilities believed to be necessary for reading. Given the differences in tasks and the moderate correlations, it is likely that the choice of measures may affect the conclusions reached regarding a student's reading ability.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Learn DisabilHome page
G. D. Sideridis, P. L. Morgan, G. Botsas, S. Padeliadu, and D. Fuchs
Predicting LD on the Basis of Motivation, Metacognition, and Psychopathology: An ROC Analysis
J Learn Disabil, June 1, 2006; 39(3): 215 - 229.
[Abstract] [PDF]