UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A validity study of the dyslexia determination test (Griffin & Walton,1981) Simmons, William A. R. 1984-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1984_A8 S54_8.pdf [ 2.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054478.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054478+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054478.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054478+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054478+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054478+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054478 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054478.txt
Citation
1.0054478.ris

Full Text

A VALIDITY STUDY OF THE DYSLEXIA DETERMINATION TEST (GRIFFIN & WALTON, 1981) by WILLIAM A.R. SIMMONS Ed.,  University  of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS' i n the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1984 ©  William  A.R. Simmons, 1984  3E-6  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s or her  be granted by the head o f representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be  allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  (3/81)  written  ABSTRACT Dyslexia extensive  has always been diagnosed by e x c l u s i o n a f t e r  b a t t e r y of t e s t s has e l i m i n a t e d a l l  D y s l e x i a Determination Test direct into  diagnosis various  etiology.  The  (D.D•T.) i s an attempt to provide a  of d y s l e x i a and to c a t e g o r i z e the  subgroups  an  which may lead to  more  disability  prescriptive  remediation. The.  purpose  validity groups the  of  of  this  the D.D.T.  of readers  investigation  by a d m i n i s t e r i n g  was  to  i t to  ( d y s l e x i c and normal) to  study  two  ascertain  the  distinct whether  t e s t could d i s c r i m i n a t e between the two groups and f u r t h e r  to examine the e f f i c a c y of the t e s t ' s d i v i s i o n of s u b j e c t s i n t o types of d y s l e x i a as defined The  sample taken from grades four to seven p u p i l s i n  Burnaby Schools,  was comprised of two groups:  defined as average readers at  by the authors of the D.D.T.  least  two years  four  a C o n t r o l Group  and an Experimental Group defined as  below grade placement i n reading  with  no  known e t i o l o g y . Groups were i d e n t i f i e d , based upon Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s Vocabulary and Comprehension s c o r e s . was  done by conferencing  teachers.  Further  with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,  screening  was  Intelligence  Test.  Experimental  s u b j e c t s was i d e n t i f i e d .  the  D.D.T.  A  Initial  final  done  sample of  c o u n s e l l o r s and  with 14  the  Control  A l l were  ii  Slosson and  14  administered  by examiners who were not aware that the  comprised two groups.  screening  subjects  Results analysis the  procedure.  D. D. T. were analyzed by Scoring  discriminant  to  subjects  and  a  discriminant  a n a l y s i s were  a l s o done by  the Manual procedures and g u i d e l i n e s .  a n a l y s i s demonstrated that  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the groups to  significant level.  of  the  examiners f o l l o w i n g The  able  of  Manual s c o r i n g  a  the D.D.T. was statistically  and a n a l y s i s r e s u l t e d  being i d e n t i f i e d as d y s l e x i c with no c l e a r  the types of d y s l e x i a  d y s l e x i a was not i n d i c a t e d Limitations discussed.  of  the  defined  by the authors.  indicators One type of  i n any s u b j e c t . study and the Test  were  noted  Suggestions were made f o r f u r t h e r research  improvements to the Test,  i n few  procedures and the Manuai.  iii  and  and f o r  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  i i  L i s t of Tables  v  L i s t of Graphs  vi  Acknowledgements  vii  Dedication  viii  Chapter 1  The Problem  1  D e f i n i t i o n of Terms  2  Overview  3  Statement  of the Problem  5  Statement  of the N u l l Hypothesis  8  Chapter 2  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e  Chapter 3  Methodology  Population  9 21  and Sample  21  D e s c r i p t i o n of Instruments  24  Administration  31  and Scoring  Research Design  31  Chapter 4  Results  33  Chapter 5  Discussion  45  Suggestions f o r Further  Research  52  References  55  Appendix  59  iv  LIST OF TABLES  1  Reading Diagnosis  34  2  S u b j e c t s ' Raw Scores on D.D.T.  35  3  Spelling  38  4  Summary of S p e l l i n g  5  Summary and Diagnosis with Reading and S p e l l i n g  40  P r e l i m i n a r y Information on Subjects  61  6  Diagnosis Diagnosis  v  39  LIST OF GRAPHS 1  Raw S c o r e — E i d e t i c  Reading (X/)  2  Raw S c o r e — P h o n e t i c  3  Raw Score—Unknown Words Reading (X^)  64  4  Raw S c o r e — E i d e t i c  65  5  Raw S c o r e — P h o n e t i c S p e l l i n g (X^)  Reading (X^)  S p e l l i n g (X^)  vi  62 63  66  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would  like  t o thank:  My thesis chairman, Dr. B u f f O l d r i d g e , f o r h i s a d v i c e and suggestions; D r . W a l t e r B o l d t f o r h i s s t a t i s t i c a l a d v i c e and helpful suggestions; D r . B a r b a r a Holmes f o r h e r i n t e r e s t and advice. The D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f t h e Burnaby S c h o o l B o a r d and t h e S u p e r v i s o r — S t a f f Development and Program I n s e r v i c e who gave me permission f o r t h i s study. The p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s who welcomed me i n t o and c l a s s r o o m s and who p r o v i d e d my p r i m a r y s o u r c e of s u b j e c t s . The  parents  and c h i l d r e n  for their  cooperation  their schools of screening  i n this  My examiners, Carl and Mont, who g e n e r o u s l y c o n t r i b u t e d t h e i r time and e x p e r t i s e .  and  study.  cheerfully  My b r o t h e r , J o h n , who gave c o u n t l e s s h o u r s o f a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t y p i n g o f t h i s p a p e r . My f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s "keep me g o i n g . "  who p r o v i d e d  interest  Without t h e k i n d h e l p and c o n t r i b u t i o n o f e a c h t h e s i s c o u l d n e v e r have been c o m p l e t e d .  vii  and s u p p o r t  of  you  to  this  DEDICATION TO MY CHILDREN TRACY AND STEWART WHO SUFFERED ALONG WITH THEIR BUSY AND OFTEN ANXIOUS FATHER AND WHO WILL HOPEFULLY NOW ENJOY A DAD WHO HAS GROWN FROM THIS EXPERIENCE  viii  CHAPTER The  As Test,  the a  subject  test  definition United  of  States specific  have  a  do  or  learning  ability  as  not  primarily mental  5(b)(4))  dyslexia  Test  itself That  of  the  think,  and  of  have  visual,  a  includes by "a  as  brain  i s , reading  psychological  using  itself  read,  in spell  include  such  i n j u r y , minimal  brain  aphasia.  or  Such  problems motor  while  i n which  or  of  of (Sec.  specifically,  there brain  spelling  or  learning  the  learning  are  handicaps,  more of  term  which  disadvantage."  differential  1  language,  disturbance,  (decoding).,  who  write,  authors  specific  children  basic  definition  condition  a  The  used.  children  learning  dyslexia,  and/or  be  disorders  economic  the  the  "Those  speak,  hearing  general  understand  manifest  emotional or  Determination  defines  in  may  developmental  or  as  or  Such  handicaps,  defined  dysfunction  language.  more  94-142,  as:  listen,  is  which  Determination  Law  understanding  cultural  is  manifesting  Public  c h i l d r e n who  This  disabilities,  in  to  henceforeth  disorder  retardation,  environmental,  i t will  or  Dyslexia  important  calculations.  result  the  which  dyslexia  the  i t is  as  one  perceptual  include  is  disabilities  in  to  mathematical  dysfunction,  brain  in  written,  conditions  does  term  involved  imperfect or  the  Problem  study  dyslexia,  disorder  processes  this  Congress,  with  spoken  of  of  1  is  Dyslexia a  minimal  function,  disability (encoding)  for and  writing  (involving  (Griffin  and Walton,  Using is  a  inability shapes  (gestalt)  The  graphemes  cause.  reading  and/or  i t could  disability  and  nemkinesis)".  of l e t t e r  write  that  area  disability  spelling  difficulty  to correctly  be s a i d  i n the  This  and  t o use a knowledge  Definition  terms  learning  in  (nemkinesia)  of  statements  an i d e n t i f i a b l e  difficulties  sounds,  1981)  t h e above  specific  without  letter  of  from  by an  ( p h o n i c s ) o r word  i n u s i n g memory  the l e t t e r s  language  i s indicated  resulting  sounds  dyslexia  o f movement  of the alphabet.  o f Terms  following used  section  throughout  c o n t a i n s an o p e r a t i o n a l  this  definition  paper.  Dyslexia The  s u b j e c t s who  identified a. subtest b. in  order c.  of  disorder e. the  called  by t h e f o l l o w i n g  Canadian  Tests  scores at least Slosson  to eliminate no p h y s i c a l  i n this  study  were  Test  Skills below  reading  actual  I.Q.  scores  Comprehension  grade of  placement; 85 o r a b o v e  learners;  handicaps such  emotional  which  might  as v i s u a l handicap  be a c a u s a l  or hearing  such  as severe  factor  impairment; behaviour  hyperactivity;  no s e c o n d  primary  Basic  two y e a r s  score,  no p r i m a r y or  of  slow  dyslexic  criteria:  Intelligence  t h e low r e a d i n g d.  were  language  language  interference,  o f t h e home.  2  that  i s ,  English i s  Dysnemkinesia A  type  of  dyslexia  gestalts  deficit  to  indicated  by p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e D.D.T. as r e v e r s a l s  and/or  motor  by a  ability  numbers  develop  characterized  i n the  f o r written  symbols, in  printed  letters.  Dyspnonesia A sound  type  of d y s l e x i a  integration,  analysis  and t h e i n a b i l i t y  synthesis  skills,  D.D.T. as a low number word of  t o be r e a d  within  words  read  by  seconds).  It  may  words s p e l l e d  characterized  by a d e f i c i t to develop  indicated  o f words r e a d  by p h o n e t i c  also  (each  word  to  be i n d i c a t e d  by p h o n e t i c  equivalent  be  symbol  phonetic  by p e r f o r m a n c e  ten seconds) i n r e l a t i o n  sight  in  on  analysis to the  read  i f l e s s than  word the (each number  within  two  50% o f t h e  are correct.  Dyseidesia A  type  ability with as  auditory a  low  phonetic  by  dyslexia  to perceive  within  It  of  indicated  of s i g h t  may a l s o  ( e a c h word  be i n d i c a t e d  traditional  deficit  orthography  (each  word  t o t h e number  t o be r e a d  i f less  i n the  and  match  by p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e D.D.T.  words r e a d  two s e c o n d s ) i n r e l a t i o n analysis  by a  whole words as v i s u a l g e s t a l t s  gestalts,  number  characterized  than  to  be  read  o f words r e a d by  within  ten  seconds).  50% o f t h e words  spelled  are correct.  Overview  The i n c i d e n c e  of d y s l e x i a  has never  3  been f u l l y  investigated,  but  i t appears  Griffin  and  Information the  to  be  in  disability  (Benton,  1975;  there  ranged  the  largest  Rutter,  children  group  of  2,334  9  28  months  basis  of  their  their  for whose  would many  who  age  and  would  learning Dyslexia impressive  In  a  According  for  the  children  prevalence  hardly  to  Scientific  dyslexic  of  to  a  of  of  to  in of  credible  30%"  not be  above  Wight,  so  found  that  This  was  at  a  rate  gives  those  diagnosis  of  a  were  was  at  on  the  155  months  below  in  reading the  to  Even  in  and  were  safe  suggest  a  prevalence  for  included  students and  28  6.6%  i t seems  would  number  chose  "There  There  least of  their  predicted  classified.  estimates  they  was  intellectual  retardation.  a l l of  In  comprehension to  dyslexic,  the  (1970).  they  or  relation  be  disabilities  study  group  giving  could  from  Isle  olds  reading  considerable  benefit  Whitmore  intelligence.  necessarily  the  learning  accuracy  age,  them  of  this  in  Although  of  affect  the  year  retarded  level  of  conservative must  11  reading  chronological  groups  10%  and  s p e c i f i c reading  backwardness."  that  to  whose  least  children  from  of  retardation.  children  3.7%  "estimates  Tizard,  11,000  of  Institute  1,200,000  studies  of  86  were  Other  study  educational  the  problem.  1980)  of by  occurring  (1981)  1980.  reading  conducted  widely  Walton  estimated  U.S.A.  One  a  above assume  the  most  that  dyslexia  our  schools  remediation  of  their  investigation.  "The  disability. has  been  magnitude  an of  area  of  this  extensive research  4  effort  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  knowledge and  about  reports  1978;  the  normal  (1980),  Span,  frequent  indicators:  temporal  Collette genetic  insertions,  learning one  who  age  or  result  no  reads grade  order  of  papers  and  Pearl,  concentrated dyslexics  of  dyslexia, deficit  storage,  poor  poor  memory  memory  a survey  of  of the  lag, attentional  reversals  and r o t a t i o n s  of  as both  on  digits  following deficit,  i n reading  or s u b s t i t u t i o n s  and  performance  sequential  errors,  reports  of  and  words  or  investigation  of  handwriting.  the  widespread  single  test  a t some level  incidence  has been  A dyslexic  defects,  devised  level  and whose r e a d i n g  neurological  environmental  to  below  diagnose defined  his  appropriate  retardation  disorders,  this  been  i s  low i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  or educational  5  and  has g e n e r a l l y  predetermined  o f any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :  problems,  between  auditory  omissions  disability.  hearing  state  of the Problem  Despite dyslexia,  have  indicators  maturation  spelling  and poor  dyslexia  short-term  (1980)  and r o t a t i o n s ,  Statement  (Benton  are the following:  poor  reversals  letters  these  and v i s u a l  Digit  letters.  current  900 m o n o g r a p h s ,  1960 and 1977."  and d i f f e r e n c e s  Among  by J o r m  auditory-verbal  and  more t h a n  the  1980)  readers.  I.T.P.A.,  lists  between  similarities  WISC  summarizing  scientists investigating  summarized  on  book  dyslexia  published  Benton, Most  on  a recent  not  visual  as  the or  primary  emotional  disadvantages  (Collette,  1980;  Griffin  and  Mindell,  1980).  involved  the  exclude  above Such  intelligence, spelling  Thus,  list  a  ability,  memory,  social  The  of  purpose  recently-published (1981).  College  of  of  "Other  a  compared  large  would  as  of  causes  of of  a  complete  a  history is a  d y s l e x i a , the are  John  professors  at  Griffin the  hearing medical, 1978).  study  Dyslexia  R.  and  (Murray,  validity  of  ability,  as  work  reading  reading vision  as  to  tests  discrimination, well  has  tests  include  perception,  1980;  dyslexia  battery  commonly  authors  recommend  battery  similar  to  have  the with  specialized are  other  checked as  is  phonetic  abilities  of  of  the  of  the  Determination and  Howard  Southern  for  N.  California  d y s l e x i a and  in  the  test  d y s l e x i a by  to  The  spelling Sight the  word  i s an  assessing  be  to  reading  when  in being  D.D.T.  is  Numbers  a and  recognition is  of  process. words  and  (Griffin  and  provide and  be  state,  valid  decoding  process."  attempt  should they  test.  revisualization  encoding  6  D.D.T.  i t s types  methods.  analysis in to  the  above-mentioned,  reversals.  as  that  D.D.T. a p p r o a c h  w r i t i n g and  evaluated  The  the  testing  i s phonetic  Spelling  1981)  shown  entity  reading,  evaluated,  diagnosis  a  the  determining  Walton,  of  present of  Rothenburg,  determination  educational  authors  whom a r e  studies  letters  test  and  Optometry.  Although part  the  The of  and  Gross  problems  battery  developmental,  both  of  auditory  and  Walton,  the  visual-motor  screening,  Test  1981;  administration  the  disorder.  Walton,  a  direct  spelling  to  determine  if  a phonetic  exists.  A subject's  numbers  is  deficits  i s considered  It . D. T. the  i s the  can  of  correctly  The  of  t h i s study  originated  level  normal spell  of  the  and  to  write  or  good  the  to  100%  phonetic  their sight  vocabulary."  the  D.D.T. w i l l  be  at  According by  a lower can  usually  this  This  evaluated.  be  spell  vocabulary less.  By  experience,  can  of  the  test,  seldom  commensurate  will  to  level  their sight  equivalents  on  grade  much  writer's of  the  normal r e a d e r s  made.  children  below and,  in  and  well  words i n t h e i r s i g h t  in  and  of . t h e s e  d e t e r m i n e how  errors  below and  c o r r e c t l y 80%  letters  any  methods employed  Dyslexic  readers,  grade l e v e l  grade l e v e l ,  the  of  of  deficit  dyslexia.  is consistently  achievement.  t h e i r reading  their  types  (sight) write  presence  indicator  number and  more t h a n 50%  contrast,  at  p u r p o s e of  the  reading  usually  an  achievement  correctly at  to  observed.  ( 1 9 7 1 ) , who  "spelling than  ability  eidetic  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between d y s l e x i c s  basis  Boder  also  ( s o u n d s ) or  vocabulary with  their  words not  basis  upon  W i l l i t show a c l e a r  yet which  pattern  of  is  reading  and  evident  i n normal r e a d e r s ?  determiner  spelling  of  dyslexia,  differing  types  screening  and  learning  disabilities  (Griffith device,  errors  of  the  useful  Walton, in  I f the and  If that  dyslexics  i t will  "the  further be  is a  1981)  i t will  a valuable  schools  and  little  become clinics  a  not  direct  demonstrate  D.D.T. h e l p s e x p l a i n  were f o r m e r l y  7  which  D.D.T. i s i n d e e d  i f i t can  disorder,  diagnosis.  and  among  tool  for  certain  understood" very  where  popular learning  disabilities Statement  There between  are of concern  of the N u l l  will  two  Determination  Test.  interest.  Hypothesis  be no  the  and  statistically  groups  as  8  significant  measured  by  the  difference Dyslexia  CHAPTER 2 A Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e  The with  concepts  Dr. E l e n a  which  form  Boder, a c l i n i c a l  University  of  considers  her  Southern  as  technique  an  interdependent  Moreover,  i t seeks  reading  the  thereby  assets  as  to i d e n t i f y  examiner guidelines  reading  make  technique, test  directed within  one  seconds, to  which read  reading  rather  as  from  other  spelling  each  (Boder,  other.  i n the t o t a l  i n the  child's  test.  errors  functional  1973)  Thus,  are  dyslexia  9  and  give  by B o d e r ,  consists  To b e g i n ,  the subject  words.  and c o n s i d e r e d  as untimed,  recorded  reads  enables the  to  be  a is  read  in his  within ten  and t h o s e  separately.  of  Those  Those words he c a n r e a d  considered also  that  in  ( B o d e r , 1973)  of i s o l a t e d  are recorded  vocabulary.  are  of s p e c i f i c  developed  lists  who direct  and  to  than  the d y s l e x i c  teaching."  graded  second  or f l a s h  It differs  a t what g r a d e l e v e l ,  and a s p e l l i n g  to read  earlier  diagnostic patterns  a diagnosis  f o r remedial  This  Medicine,  " i t i s t h e a n a l y s i s o f how t h e c h i l d  r a t h e r than  to  of  are related  w e l l as h i s d e f i c i t s . "  spells,  of  i n the  r e v e a l i n g how t h e r e a d i n g and  performances,  considering  Boder's procedure,  unable  of d y s l e x i a .  dyslexic child  and s p e l l i n g  alone,  sight  extension  f u n c t i o n s , thus  of  of p e d i a t r i c s  School  approaches p r i m a r i l y i n a n a l y z i n g  spelling  and  professor  California  approaches to the d i a g n o s i s direct  t h e b a s i s o f t h e D.D.T. o r i g i n a t e d  he  is  "The h i g h e s t  grade  level  least  50%  Comparison and  a t which  o f the word  whole-word  predominantly  through  second  stage  sections—known asked  to s p e l l  from  and  write  the same number o f or  above;  'flash'  and  the c h i l d phonetic  test  grades  ten  reading  analysis  The  'untimed'  child  Secondly,  he  words a t h i s  words he was  or  1973) in is  'known' words a t h i s  below.  preferably,  is  presented  unknown words.  dictation  two  r e a d words i n t h e  is a spelling  level  level,  within  level.  or t h e o t h e r . " ( B o d e r ,  words and  at  reading  whether  gestalts  one  vocabulary includes  i s considered his  columns i n d i c a t e s  both  The  list  sight  o f t h e number o f c o r r e c t l y  'untimed'  through  the c h i l d ' s  two first  reading  i s asked  actual  unable  to  to  grade decode  phonetically. "In  the  list  of  number o f c o r r e c t l y phonetic the  and  ability  the  two  auditory  and  same way  that  test for It  tap  how  words;  visual  they of  notes  the  include  both  'unknown' words  words,  correctly  p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t s of the  'revisualize'  spelling  whether  i n the l i s t  o f the s p e l l i n g  to  the  words and  examiner  many o f t h e w r i t t e n  a r e good  Analysis  child's Thus  notes  or n o t ,  words.  spelled  non-phonetic  examiner  spelled  'known' words t h e  lists  of  dictated  'known' words r e v e a l s  words i n h i s s i g h t  are designed  to tap  vocabulary. the  central  processes necessary f o r s p e l l i n g ,  'flash'  the c e n t r a l  and  visual  'untimed' and  in  columns o f t h e  auditory  the  processes  the  reading necessary  reading. is  clear  that  the s p e l l i n g  10  list  of  'unknown'  words  reveals  the  certain  that  ability  to  phonetic  his  phonetic  spelling  (e.g.  From  an  'talk',  relationship  when  the  the  vocabulary task  between  how  a  atypical  reading-spelling patterns  the  1973)  In  The  1927;  normal  synthetic spells and  the  Heller,  automatic  processes  quantitatively Boder,  1963;  the  (Orton,  1966,  dyslexic children  be  that of  in  these  reading  the  a n a l a y t i c or  specific and  consistently  deficits  spelling.  operational  dyslexia  noted  above.  gestalt  are  One  or  et  other  None  retarded  11  of  b,  of the  and  al,  readers  reads  1962;  three  and  Ingram,  Johnson that  the  language or  who  and basic  symbols  both,  patterns  specific  a).  analytic-  i n abnormal the  1971  qualitatively  function,  of  "In  dissociated  and  suggest  he  paper."  says,  is  1966;  reflected  definitions  she  both  i n apprehending  in a l l severely  standard  reader  observations  the  this  dyslexic child  Thompson,  defects can  own  in  a  how  distinctive,  The  a;  1967).  and  gestalt  Bauza  Myklebust, of  My  1968  Boder  consistent  three  process  1937;  1971  a  of  normal  of non-  tasks  reads  observations  Boder,  interplay  from  disclose  reading  is disrupted.  differently  1963;  normal  his  strikingly  described  these  reveal  spelling  d e l i n e a t i o n of  explaining  dyslexic child,  (Bachmann,  the  less  independently  dyslexic child  This  is  1973)  and  "that  It  can  is  (Boder,  spells.  (Boder,  to  word  reading  patterns  skills.  'known' w o r d s  'laugh')."  three  led  of  sight  a n a l y s i s of  identified  word-analysis  list  'revisualize'  clues—except  phonetic  has  child's  and  patterns is  fulfill  found the  developmental  patterns  is  found  among  normal  grade  level  three  described  they  representation. that  typically  unable  clues  they  dissimilar The not  letters being  such  tend  1973)  of  dyslexia,  are  sight  vocabulary  and  read  sight They  to read  s u b s t i t u t e a word  upon  however  guess  letter  flash  common  vocabulary, may  and l a s t  o f whole  they a r e  a word  and t h e  words  better  similar  in  or  from length  i n context, meaning  but  phonetically. child  ear', for  He i s a p o o r  consistently of  his  below  sight  to spell  h i s reading  correctly,  vocabulary,  in  by s i g h t learning  speller,  vocabulary)  He s p e l l s  i n h i s sight  attempts  he h a s d i f f i c u l t y  like.  phonetically. words  also  above  I--Dysphonetic—includes  word,  i t .  as the f i r s t  They may  sound  level  see a  to decipher  dysphonetic  'by  Group  recognize  they  a r e up t o o r  (Boder,  a limited  can  who  subtypes  i s not yet i n t h e i r  t h e word.  though  or  as:  have  When  phonetic,  of  (1973)  typically  that  minimal  and s p e l l i n g . "  patterns,  by B o d e r who  words  i . e . ,children  i n reading  These  children  readers,  and  what  the  his spelling  level  (i.e.  because  he  level  the  grade  cannot  to dictation,  phonetic  alone  or not,  spell  only that  those  he  can  revisualize. Word dyslexic  s u b s t i t u t i o n s a r e so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c children  substitutions configurations, for  'money'  may  as  be b a s e d  such and  to  be  for  12  'horse' 'step'.  group  pathognomic.  on t h e s i m i l a r i t y  as r e a d i n g  'stop'  virtually  of this  of  the  f o r 'house', The  most  of The  visual 'monkey' likely  substitutions, spelling, to  however,  are closely  the o r i g i n a l  substitution  word.  termed  'duck',  for  'train',  Angeles'  'answer'  Generally 1970),  such  'person'  laboriously,  f o r 'laugh', 'stairs'  f o r 'human';  a s i f he i s s e e i n g  the dysphonetic  learning  what memory what  may  aptly  be  'by  as  may  word-  be  errors'  'chicken'  more  (Boder,  or  f o r 'step',  'planet'  'quack'  'airplane'  f o r 'moon',  to him.  through  sounding  combinations  of  look  letters,  child  'Los  word  f o r the f i r s t  I , who  has  He  The term  of phonetic as • w e l l  than  by  time.  child  has  difficulty  'letter-blind'  i s an a n a l y t i c  familiar  "reads  difficulty  the dyseidetic  like.  rather  who  and t h e r e f o r e has  a process  out  the  like,  gestalts  the l e t t e r s applied  each  o f Group  sound  for visual  ear',  synthesis,  child  the l e t t e r s  learning  reads  errors  in  phonetically  to simply  'semantic-substitution  f o r 'ask',  but a l s o  but not  referred  II—Dyseidetic—describes  poor  reading,  for 'city')."  Group  Unlike  in  conceptually  a , 1971 a ) ( e . g . ' f u n n y '  for  a  related  (Critchley,  descriptively 1968  primarily  reader  and  analysis  and  as  unfamiliar  whole-word  visual  gestalts. The lower in word  sight  level  vocabulary  than  that  of the dyseidetic  of the dysphonetic  contrast to the dysphonetic list  missing example,  by p h o n e t i c  only  words  'laugh'  analysis  that may  cannot  child,  child.  i s a t a much Nevertheless,  he c a n o f t e n  up t o o r n e a r be d e c o d e d  n o t be r e a d  13  child  read  h i s grade  level,  phonetically.  a t a l l or read  as  the  'log'  For or  'loge ,  'business'  may  dyseidetic  child,  1  be  misread  as  ' b u s s y n e s s ' and  'talk'  as  'talc'. The poorly,  though  reads—'by the  ear'.  original  spelling  Simple,  himself  'bisnis'  may  written good  cannot  writing  III  who  (e.g.  as  phonetic,  ' l a f ' for  for  'business',  words i n the  he and  in  his  'laugh',  'house',  'onkl'  dyseidetic  written  unfamiliar  for  'lisn' 'uncle',  child's limited  i n c o r r e c t l y i n h i s known-  phonetic  word not  c o r r e c t l y i n h i s unknown-word  group  are  equivalents  of  in his list.  non-phonetic  reading  identified Group  usually  They a r e  ear'.  child  spells  readily identified  others  f o r example,  third  necessarily  or. 'by  spells  sight He  can  words  that  ' t a l k ' as  'talc'  and  Boder  the  'tok'.  handicapped. not  be  child,  therefore  ' t a l k ' , 'hows' f o r  dysphonetic-dyseidetic. children  are  He  for  usually  phonetic  read;  i t as  The  are  whereas an  be  bizarrely.  usually and  dysphonetic  'vacation').  vocabulary  also.write he  by  non-phonetic  word l i s t ,  the  misspellings  ' b i r d ' , 'tok'  'vakashn' f o r  list  His  can  'listen',  sight  a r u l e not  word  list,  'burd' f o r for  as  like  equally  Like  has  in  learning  the  dysphonetic  the  a deficit  what the child  the  so.  comprises  most  severely  They  dyseidetic  and  cannot child  read  of  the  Group I , he  14  dyslexic  educationally though  e i t h e r on  sight  Group I I , the  Group  alphabet has  the  mixed  dyseidetic,  in gestalt function of  is  III  both d y s p h o n e t i c  letters of  by  and  has  look  a deficit  difficulty like;  in  like  analytic  function  and  like.  In  d  - p  in  in  Group  - q ,  m-w (e.g.  dysphonetic,  like  the  more  same  I  do,  h  sense  n  that  may  -  has  u)  and  y  -  Group a  and  the  I,  but  said  be  a  with  more  subtle  mis-spellings letters  or  a  (b  pattern  is  appear  unrelated  scribble.  non-reader,  he  -  graphic  his of  than  letters  spelling  letter, to  tends,  His  sequence  sound  visuo-spatial  reversible  letters  y).  letters  marked  writing  initial be  l e a r n i n g what  confuse  and  of  one  he  and  commonly  word,  that  -  n  in  often  to  and  bizarre—  dictated  he  reading  differences  even  difficulty  addition,  difficulties children  has  to  In  the  is a  non-  speller. The  Group  III  the  lower  grade  level  by  his  defeat  lack and  often  from  lists  normal  (Boder, normal  words  phobic  his  be  differentiated  sight  vocabulary  from  and  withdrawal  from  reading  and  Group  from  analysis-synthesis skills.  e x p l a i n i n g how  spelling  can  word  of  can  His  I  by  Group  II  sense  of  writing tasks  are  striking." In  cent  of  child  can  a),  can  their  sight  write not  children dictation  good  write  phonetic  in  their  in  a l l three  dyslexic  states,  is  my  many  as  50  at  to  "It by  of  vocabulary.  per  15  can cent  seldom of  the  and  80  100  to  In  child  (1972),  70  level  and  observation  Whiting  dictation  grade  equivalents  groups  reading  the  correctly  sight  combining  differentiate  vocabulary  yet  as  Boder  of  recently corroborated  readers of  technique  directly  readers,  1971  this  to  that  100  per  below,  and  per  cent  of  contrast, dyslexic  spell words  correctly in  their  to sight  vocabulary  at  their  children  in  phonetic  equivalent  being  0  from  to  30  each  actual  Group  per  all  age  for  older  I  or  of  by  level  an  the for  levels—usually  The  reading  III  cent.  other  reading  actual  can  seldom  and  are  differentiated  Group  I of  III  the  children  primer  or  per  striking cent  spelled  in  80  This  of  the  to  their 100  proved  useful  the  three  sub-types  normal  being  much  pre-primer  the  lower  level,  the  be  Boder's by  Group  II  at  even  children  Groups  I  III,  fewer  sight  vocabulary  list  percentage list  and  of  good  i s within  phonetic  the  to  scoring—  of  that  normal  i s , the  conjunction  with  the  empirically  established  dyslexic It  dyslexic  pattern,  a  children  has  child  on  also from  whose  more  the  degree  each  proved  basis  other  and  useful  in  readers  reading  of  ranges-  objective  from  poor  two  within  retardation  a can  non-specific."  concept numerous  syndromes  their  distinguishing  reading-spelling to  the  in  of  in  readers.  distinguishing  two  in  in  approach  and  has  supported  retardation,  cent.  considered  retardation  assumed  but  As  unknown-words  per  preliminary  percentages  be  words  correctly,  equivalents  normal  range  children.  than  from  III  reading  combination.  reading  recognizable  Groups  a  of  a  the  typical  presents  range  write  and  the  s p e l l i n g performance  are  below,  word',  two-column  50  or  'unknown  degree  at  level  of  of  two  diverse  dyslexia  types  sources.  which  16  of  he  dyslexia Quiros  describes  seems  (1964) as  to  be  describes  deficits  in  central  auditory  processing  Myklebust  (1965)  dyslexics  or  Boder's  categorizes  visual  dysphonetic  and  Warrington  a  marked  dyslexics,  Scale  with  a deficit three  of  relating  scores  Test  poor  visual  memory,  memory,  and  errors,  also  of  strength  ' in  correspond  with  and a u d i t o r y  Smith  readers  the  on  ability  sequencing. ability.  dysphonetic  respectively.  17  based  a  Gertsmann  on  (1968)  profiles  memory  from  the  She d e s c r i b e s t h e visual  memory  memory  with  poor  poor  visual  and  upon  types  of  of  dyslexia-  (1970)  identified  basis  of  subtest  1 as  showing  in  symbol  deficits Her P a t t e r n These and  have  Bateman  her Pattern  with  a  to  and a  subgroups  and mixed.  i n spatial  to Boder's  both  based  three  She d e s c r i b e s  spatial  of d e f i c i t s  group  describes  retarded  o n t h e WISC.  auditory  with  the Wechsler  as a good  et a l (1970),  visuospatial,  profiles  to  readers  groups  readers  considered  and a u d i t o r y  good  a third  reading  variety  of disabled  to  Kinsbourne  two g r o u p s —  ordering.  Ingram  manipulation  they  on  i n sequential  memory.  groups  delineated  auditory  correspond  o f poor  language,  auditory  three  a group  in  the three  being  would  of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t y . of  Similarily,  respectively.  whom  to v i s u a l  auditory  audophonic,  as  discrepancy  deficit  groups  characteristics with  group,  cerebral  identifies  Illinois  i n studying  for Children,  language-retardation developmental  which  and d y s e i d e t i c ,  (1966),  processing.  h i s subjects  verbal-performance  Intelligence  group,  and v i s u a l  2 shows  patterns  dyseidetic  a  appear groups  Sklar  et  al  (1972)  encephalograms  has  using  patterns  diagnostic.  12  Boder's  sample  of  normal  controls,  group  from  their of  the  Mattis  of  sufficient  to  repetition dyslexic  of  the  (1975)  used  on  sample  different  a  dyslexics  procedure  are  an  specific  one  the  dyslexic  estimates  of  of  battery  brain-damaged  non-brain-damaged single  reading could  patterns  from  matched  extensive  cortical of  random  age-sex  and  higher  that  at  spectral  independent  acquisition  was  patterns  are  correspond the  described  motor-speech  perception.  without  al  in  the  deficits  functioning... skill."  observe  of  or  deficits  "What frequent  among  the  children."  development,  verbal  limit  of  electrothat  differentiate  basis  "isolate  apparent  These  having  to  to  13  the  tests  deficiencies  become  spatial  et  her  and  of  claim  children selected  able  c o n t r o l s on  i n order  clusters  a  were  brain-damaged  dyslexics  by  c h i l d r e n (1968)  neuropsychological  readers,  did  107  study  Boder's  produced  dyslexic  they  E.E.G.'s.  computerized  substantiated  reading-spelling Using  a  to  ability  to  i n t r u s i o n s or l e a r n i n g and  'look-and-say'  impaired  have  not  children  described  with  a  or  phonemes  omissions;  retrieval, vocabulary. learned  the  Mattis  of  language  disorder  appear  18  in  being  their  impairs  names  who of  al.  to as  sequence  an  instability  of  the  acquisition  of  are the  as  visuo-  described  correct  with  "Those  et  language  disorder  but,  which  in  a  d y s e i d e t i c group,  blend  by  disorders  difficulty,  Those  Boder's  as  more  severely  letters." having  a  The visuo-  perceptial  disorder  dysphonetic, visual  as t h e i r  stimuli  letter  blend  Using four  dyslexic  this  for  those  processed  (1978) has used  f o r the purpose  Aaron d i v i d e d  dysphonetic  Having  WISC d i g i t  reproduction  of  span,  group was identify poorer.  sequences  than  fewer  the c o n t r o l  significantly other and  more  than  there  was  three  groups.  present procedure  comparable faces  is  while  group.  t h e o t h e r s under  his  indicates a valid  recalled  group  in  conclusions,  that  but s i m p l e  19  paired  Boder's  Aaron  group more  was digit  significantly  group  gestalts  recall.  reversals Aaron  The  group i n t h e i r  reproduced than  r e v e r s e d more  delayed  difference  of  different.  The d y s p h o n e t i c  The d y s p h o n e t i c  third  tests—  recalled  as v i s u a l  A  four  dyseidetic  group  who  paired l e t t e r s  Among  the  to  t h r e e and  letters,  to the c o n t r o l  The d y s e i d e t i c  no s i g n i f i c a n t  study  sound  research.  groups.  individual  the d y s p h o n e t i c ,  two g r o u p s . shapes  of  two,  reproduction  t h a t t h e g r o u p s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y  than  and  sound  isolate  administered  concluded  significantly  their  his  h i s grade  and d y s e i d e t i c  as a c o n t r o l .  faces,  to  r e t r i e v a l of  Boder's technique  and  ability  calls  that l e t t e r s  cannot  letters,  dysphonetic  Boder  associated with  These c h i l d r e n  children  subjects into  memory  be r e l i a b l y  Aaron  procedure,  group was used  like  adequately.  recently  classify  be  " p e r c e p t i o n , s t o r a g e and/or  referents."  sounds  More  to  a r e so i n e f f i c i e n t l y  sequences cannot  or l i n g u i s t i c nor  seem  letters However,  among  states,  diagnostic  the  the "the  screening  means o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  the  two  clinical  subtypes of d y s l e x i a . "  Boder's appears as  designation  t o be  confirmed  cited  above.  deficit',  'poor  by  Their  appear  Group  I,  while  Group I I ,  same  as  those  referred  processing  memory',  w h i c h used support types  of  would  upon  similar  this  that  Procedure  t o p r o d u c e the  scores  and  study  subjects to  the  in  Boder's  symbol  dysphonetic  seem to be  the as  variously  'visual  dyslexia',  'poor  deficit',  or  the  provide  an  existence  differentiated  Aaron  (1978),  even  stronger  two  distinct  of  and  visual  'visuospatial  e t a l (1972) and  the  of E l e n a  defined  concept  of  two  the  authors  types  seems t o f i t w i t h  researchers, standardized Dyslexia was who  Boder's  by  the  work,  and  the  of  and  Griffin  and  Determination  dyslexia  compliment Walton  Diagnostic Test  t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether  differences in b e l i e v e to  types.  20  be  this  reading indicative  have  Screening (D.D.T.). the  D.D.T.  have been p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d  f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e whether  demonstrate that  and  this  identify  dyslexic would  of  'deficit  process  literature  directly,  work i s based  f i n d i n g s of o t h e r  purpose  or  'auditory  i n the  foundation  expanded  could  to  as  d y s e i d e t i c , would  ordering  adopted,  The  researchers,  such  dyslexia  Procedure.  evidence  which her  other  seem t o c o n f i r m  upon by  f i n d i n g s of  describing  the  procedure  Screening  Based supported  be  d y s l e x i a which are  Diagnostic  of  work of S k l a r  Boder's  and  types  memory'  deficit',  The  distinct  terms,  to  'sequential  deficiency'.  two  the  auditory  manipulation',  'visual  of  ^  as  instrument  and  spelling  of  dyslexic  CHAPTER 3  Methodology  Population  The  and  Sample  population  students  who  exclusion:  f i t the at  least  reading  Comprehension  Skills,  with  the  no  definition two  scores  low  or  four  to s e v e n as  years  of  school  deficiency  as  definition restricts  of the  defined  i n t e r v e n t i o n and  achievement;  population  was  the The the  I.Q. and  of  scores whose  restricted  have not  necessary  to  seven  diagnosed  Canadian Tests  85;  dyslexia.  to  by in  Basic  p h y s i c a l h a n d i c a p s which might  in  population  the  students  experience  four  below g r a d e p l a c e m e n t  of a t l e a s t  The  primary  grades  of d y s l e x i a as  on  reading  is English.  as  grade l e v e l s  I n t e l l i g e n c e Test  language  the  defined  emotional  c a u s e of t h e i r  Slosson  was  had  the  elementary  of  school  primary to  the  investigator's limit  the  grades  number  to demonstrate  upper  on  be  of  reading  operational grade  seven  where most  of  remediation  of d y s l e x i a i s most l i k e l y  to  chosen  four  occur. The  sample  district the  i n the  schools  economic a r e a , middle they  was  Greater  the  East  while  one  s c h o o l was  conveniently  schools  in  Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n  were on  socio-economic  were  from  area.  side,  a lower  a  Three  of  Area. to middle  socio-  i n E a s t - C e n t r a l Burnaby,  These s c h o o l s  c l u s t e r e d i n one  21  Burnaby,  were used  area  of  a  because  Burnaby  and  they  had  been  students for  a  who  would  group.  Permission  for  Research  Development enrollment  and of  Canadian  Tests  subjects,  grade  whose  for  or  or  the  and  explained in  subjects  of  reading  November,  the  being  placement  and  the  criteria  by  the  Burnaby  four  were  identified  scores  from  which Where scores  was  Vocabulary  fell  within  The  final  upon  grade  score  been  possible,  based  two  the  had  chosen.  least  schools'  were  1983.  d y s l e x i c group at  the  V,  Comprehension below,  for  meet  the  42  Form  programmes  Supervisor—Staff  From  Skills, in  to  granted  through  basis  score  in  asked the  were  which  to  affect  predominant  discussions,  14  of  from  administrators,  were the  explained sample  d y s l e x i a due p h y s i c a l or  reading  home  or  to  the  levels  being  below  were  22  not  English  them  and  who  or  emotional  and they  would  intelligence,  primary  eliminated  because  language.  was  to  counsellors  subjects  low  achievement,  language  subjects  handicaps  with  criteria  deficiencies,  could  emotional  held  eliminate  definition  sight  which  was  1300,  Basic  as  expected  study  the  special  placement.  teachers,  fit  on  inclusion  grade  be  with  Inservice.  Vocabulary  Discussions  were  Program  district-wide  Comprehension below  likely  Committee  of  criteria,  decision  schools  this  1984,  administered  as  approximately  January,  the  most  dyslexic  Schools  in  identified  not  hearing problems  whose  native  tongue  English.  From  these  from was  the  not  sample their  due  to  primary  After remaining  receiving subjects  administered determine well,  any  that  this  ensure  a  of  the  Slosson none  none  above  p e r m i s s i o n from  (a response  of  provided  that  parental  a  of  of  54%),  Intelligence  Test  the  rate  subjects  personal  the  which  personnel.  One  the  of  an  I.Q.  of  14  experimental  criteria  final  sample A  control  Vocabulary were  exception  of  the  criteria  been  applied  matched The  with  an  to  average  above  placement,  when  below  experimental  females  of  with  compared  an to  the  been  at  I.Q.  as  four  near  were  he  grade  placement  grade  to  consisted of  As to  school to  meet in  a  to  this  of  placement With  the  scores,  the  group  group,  as  had  including  possible,  subjects  classroom. and  placement  0.4  C.T.B.S.  grade  eight  Vocabulary  95.8.  placement,  23  failed  schools.  Comprehension  I.Q.  with  resulting  their  s i x males  grade  their  average  of  and  Their  while  group  85.  readers with  Wherever  consisted  actual  to  excluded for  for reading  applied  f o r gender  below  below  been  85,  Burnaby  criteria  100.7.  were  for observation  because  average  scores  of  28  Norms)  discussed  least  the  subjects.  S.I.T.  groups  group  grades  of  (1981  experimental (dyslexic)  I.Q.  0.8  The  the  control  grades  same  different  across  from  0.2  score  defined  the  had  of  a l l subjects  s h o u l d have  excluded  for selection  administration  were  was  Comprehension  from  same  the  group,  and  chosen  subject  an  opportunity  subjects  reasons,  had  15  to  scores  grades seven  0.6 ranged  above males  Their  ranged,  scores  on  ranged grades from  placement. and  grade the  females  seven scores,  Vocabulary  test,  from  0.8  Comprehension The  t o 3.2 test,  requires  quotes  confidence  subjects  this  i t  these  two mean  related on  intervals  effect  Description  of  subtests  were  The Skills  form  scores  Manual  there  i s only  lower  a  five  of  15) these  6 points at  small  level.  From  chance  that  different.  I t would  with  a demonstrated  than  an a v e r a g e  cannot  of  (page  level,  a t t h e 95% c o n f i d e n c e  scores  Tests  five  Skills.  of Basic  test  language  be  language-  reading  group  component.  be c o n s i d e r e d  Only  Skills  battery  sections,  Language  for this  with  I.Q.  has a h e a v i l y - w e i g h t e d  achievement  CTBS  placement.  on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between  administered  subjects  below  t o have  reading  a  scores.  Instruments  Comprehension, Mathematics  a n d , on t h e  f o r t h e a g e a n d I.Q. r a n g e  score  The C a n a d i a n  which  mean  are significantly  would which  grades  The S.I.T.  t h e d y s l e x i c group  significant  administered  t o 3.6  placement,  a t t h e 68% c o n f i d e n c e  scores  deficit  grade  the group  and 8 p o i n t s  that  below  scrutiny.  d i f f e r e n c e i n I.Q.  1.  1.8  c a n be c o n c l u d e d  the Slosson  This  some  as 4 p o i n t s  85% l e v e l ,  expected  from  d i f f e r e n c e between  points  the  grades  consisting  Work  the Vocabulary  i n the d i s t r i c t - w i d e  i s  were  an a d a p t a t i o n  n a t i o n a l Canadian  24  i s a  Study  eleven Reading  Skills  and R e a d i n g assessment  and  sections  from  which  chosen.  o f t h e Iowa  norms  group  of  namely--Vocabulary,  Skills,  investigation  (CTBS)  first  Tests  of  established i n  Basic 1973  using 152  schools r e p r e s e n t i n g a l l ten provinces and  The in  more than 23,000 p u p i l s from grades three to e i g h t  sample was  a stratified  which E n g l i s h was  1980  the  CTBS  c u r r i c u l a and  was  was  the major language s l i g h t l y modified  of  to  The  1981  schools  instruction.  reflect  renormed using approximately  reliability  territories.  random sample of Canadian  grade from a l l across Canada. consistency  two  from  In  changes  3200 p u p i l s  Manual r e p o r t s  in per  internal  c o e f f i c i e n t s that range from  .67  to  .95. 2.  The  individual  Slosson  Intelligence  I n t e l l i g e n c e Test.  from  a p o p u l a t i o n of 1109  New  from  27  months.  months  conversion  ranks  the of  this  of  to the  using  stretch  (SIT)  is  a  brief  i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t made up of items adapted from the  Stanford-Binet  scores  Test  216  The  1981  norms are  England s u b j e c t s ranging This  norming  SIT from a r a t i o I.Q.  to  the " e q u i - p e r c e n t i l e method to d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores to  the anchor t e s t " ( S t a n f o r d B i n e t ) . T  in  deviation  the  and/or  percentile  As a r e s u l t  method of r e c a l i b r a t i o n the Manual s t a t e s the "new  of  norms the  norms." Earlier  editions  of  validity  between the SIT and  from  to .96  "cross norms  a I.Q.  f o r the SIT have the same degree of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y as do S-B.  age  included  compress  match  derived  .89  the manual S-B.  f o r v a r i o u s ages.  reported  averaging The  1981  .93 with a  the SIT i n r e l a t i o n to the S-B  25  range  Manual s t a t e s that  v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s conducted using the newly for  concurrent  generated  have shown that  the  correspondence established  between and  two  1981,  scores f o r below normal  normal  and  instruments  indeed has been improved  (Armstrong and Jensen, lower  the  page 3.)  has  upon  been  re-  somewhat...."  The SIT claims to y i e l d  s u b j e c t s and higher  g i f t e d s u b j e c t s than the S-B.  scores  for  also  been  I t has  reported to be most r e l i a b l e i n the low I.Q.  group.  3. The D y s l e x i a Determination Test (D.D.T.) c o n s i s t s of three parts administered i n the f o l l o w i n g order. found  in  Boder's Procedure,  r e v e r s a l s of l e t t e r s and/or  i s a t e s t of  numbers.  a)  to w r i t e the numbers from 1 - 10,  in  upper  flow of c u r s i v e  It i s  the  examinee.  quality  to produce  lower  the s u b j e c t  may  important  to  reversals  the examiner  than  of the p e n c i l g r i p and the posture of  The t o t a l  is  i s to note the hand  number of  r e v e r s a l s of  e i t h e r upper or lower case l e t t e r s ,  both  whichever  i s recorded as w e l l as the number of omissions.  the  in  writing.  In s c o r i n g t h i s s e c t i o n ,  if  directed  b) to p r i n t the alphabet  As an o p t i o n a l f o u r t h a c t i v i t y ,  p r i n t i n g i s more l i k e l y  the f l u i d  used,  or  that a l l s u b j e c t s must p r i n t the alphabets as the authors  believe  and  The s u b j e c t i s  asked to p r i n t h i s name and address.  note  not  Dysnemkinesia,  case l e t t e r s and c) to p r i n t the alphabet  case l e t t e r s . be  Part I,  To  the  numbers  i s greater, determine  a dysnemkinesia e x i s t s , the s u b j e c t ' s score i s compared with a l l o w a b l e number of r e v e r s a l s based upon h i s grade  as f o l l o w s :  26  level,  Grade  The degree of d e f i c i t  1-9  reversals  Grade 2 - 7  reversals  Grade 3 - 5  reversals  Grade 4 - 3  reversals  Grade 5 - 1  reversal  i s determined as f o l l o w s :  1 grade l e v e l below = mild  deficit  2 grade l e v e l s below = moderate 3 grade l e v e l s below = marked  Part  II  Kindergarten  (decoding)  deficit  deficit  c o n s i s t s of graded word  l e v e l to C o l l e g e l e v e l .  lists  from  The authors s t a t e  that  this  range allows the s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a to be met  from  grades 2 to 12.  by  The examinee i s requested to read these  lists,  beginning two or three grades below h i s grade  These  lists  are  modifications Manual, City  very  have  similar  "graded word l i s t s  Assessment  Test are u t i l i z e d .  Similarly,  and  lists  According to  the  but  some  Examiner's Angeles  and the Azusa ( C a l i f o r n i a ) U n i f i e d School  Some  primers  of  Boder's  placement.  were obtained from the Los  District.  various  to  been made.  School D i s t r i c t  subjects  the  words  in  the  San  Diego  Quick  Words were a l s o obtained  reader g l o s s a r i e s  that  were  form  surveyed.  commonly-used Dolch nouns are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the  27  D.D.T." The  subject  reads  each  list  of  ten  words  examiner records those read c o r r e c t l y , w i t h i n two the  E ( e i d e t i c ) column of the p r o t o c o l .  given  ten  seconds  correctly noted read  correctly  lists  from  is  then  to read each of those words that  was  not  read c o r r e c t l y  are  time.  Those now  during  column.  either  trial  are  Those  marked  T h i s process i s continued with  in  reading l e v e l i s the highest l i s t words  recorded  the E column).  the  and  The  second  time  U  has  examinee's  i n which at l e a s t 50%  were read w i t h i n the two in  The  not  succeeding  u n t i l the s u b j e c t reads l e s s than 50% of a l i s t  l e a s t ten words recorded i n the U column.  the  seconds,  i n the P (phonetic) column of the p r o t o c o l .  (unknown)  at  the  subject  read the f i r s t  The  while  (5)  limit  of  (those  number of E column words  at  t h i s l e v e l i s recorded, as w e l l as the t o t a l number of words i n the E and P columns, r e s p e c t i v e l y . a  judgment  suggest  (P (E  most  approaching  examiner must a l s o make  at t h i s point as to whether more words  phonetically vocabulary  The  column) or were part of column).  of  the  the  were  subjects  In making t h i s d e c i s i o n the evidence  should  come  from  the examinee's reading l e v e l and may  read sight  authors  the  lists  be a s s i s t e d  l o o k i n g at the words read to consider i f most were phonetic  by or  non-phonetic. Part using  III  (encoding)  i s comprised  words from the graded  of two  reading l i s t s .  begun at the s u b j e c t ' s reading l e v e l ,  28  and,  spelling The  first  working  tests test i s  backward,  ten  odd-numbered words from the E columns  are  dictated.  The  number s p e l l e d c o r r e c t l y i s recorded. The  second  t e s t i s a l s o begun at the  but  level,  d i c t a t i n g ten words (odd and/or even) taken from the U  spell  time  the examiner works forward  reading  level,  column.  this  subject's  Before t h i s t e s t ,  of  words  the  this  the s u b j e c t has been i n s t r u c t e d to  the words p h o n e t i c a l l y  number  from  (e.g.  examiner  ' l a f ' f o r 'laugh').  deems  to  be  spelled  The in a  r e c o g n i z a b l e phonetic mode i s recorded. For  both  spelling  tests  the c r i t e r i a  f o r success  or  d e f i c i t are: 100% c o r r e c t - above normal 80% c o r r e c t - normal  performance  60% c o r r e c t - b o r d e r l i n e 40% c o r r e c t - mild  performance  performance  deficit  20% c o r r e c t - moderate 0% c o r r e c t - marked  deficit deficit  Decoding and encoding performance are now a n a l y z e d . should  i n d i c a t e a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of s t r e n g t h or  either  phonics (phonesia) or s i g h t  D.D.T.  should  administration deficit  be will  displayed  discrepancy s t i l l  administered.  weakness i n  (eidesia) a b i l i t y .  decoding and encoding p a t t e r n s do not c o i n c i d e ,  Both  I f the  Form B of the  Hopefully,  this  second  e l i m i n a t e any doubt as to the the type by  the  examinee.  If  a  of  significant  e x i s t s between encoding and decoding p a t t e r n s  29  the  s e v e r i t y of the d e f i c i t  the r e s u l t s of both t e s t s . encoding  with good decoding  encoding  deficit.  As  a  result  described  above,  determined. reversals  decoding  an  Dyseidesia  types  of  These  the  criteria subjective,  as a mild  D.D.T.  as  may  be  number  of  dyslexia  diagnosed  if  the  t e s t exceeds the published  inability  to  decode  criteria. spells  and  by  encode  i s the d i a g n o s i s i f the examinee i s  demonstrate a reasonable s i g h t  and encoding  somewhat  is  scoring  i s i n d i c a t e d when the s u b j e c t reads and  demonstrating  to  "averaging"  s k i l l s would be diagnosed  basic  on the p r i n t i n g  phonetically. unable  three  by  For example, a moderate d e f i c i t i n  a d m i n i s t e r i n g and  Dysnemkinesia  Dysphonesia sight,  of  would be adjusted  vocabulary  t e s t s while phonetic a b i l i t y for  diagnosing  dyslexia  in  particular  where  in  i s evident.  appear  the  the  to  be  examiner  is  r e q u i r e d to make a judgment of the r e l a t i v e phonetic or e i d e t i c reading  ability  of  the examinee.  Anyone using  the  D.D.T.  should consider Boder's d e s c r i p t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s groups (Boder,  she  has  1971)  observed that,  i n her  i n normal readers,  l e v e l s are very n e a r l y the same, is  invariably  spelling  less  vocabulary seldom  research.  has  stated  s p e l l i n g and  reading  while the d y s l e x i c ' s  below h i s reading l e v e l ,  both  than 50 per cent of the words  correctly.  In  She  addition,  the  between  spelling  groups in  usually  their  sight  dysphonetic  child  can produce a r e c o g n i z a b l e phonetic e q u i v a l e n t f o r more  than 30 per cent of h i s unknown words, while the d y s e i d e t i c  30  may  spell  80  to 100 per cent of h i s unknown  words  phonetically  "correct".  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring All  subjects  examiners  were  administered  the D.D.T.  by  trained  f o l l o w i n g the p r e s c r i b e d procedures as explained  in  the Examiner's I n s t r u c t i o n Manual and the tape "A M i n i Seminar" provided  with  the  examiners a c c o r d i n g checked case  k i t . Scoring  was  done  by the  to the manual i n s t r u c t i o n s and were double-  by the i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r mechanical e r r o r s and,  of  phonetic  equivalents. of  D.D.T.  spelling,  f o r agreement  on  good  i n the  phonetic  The examiners were not aware of the exact  purpose  t h e i r t e s t i n g nor of the d i v i s i o n of the s u b j e c t s i n t o  two  groups. Research Design  1. Research Hypothesis a. Dyslexia the  The  basic  Determination  two d i s t i n c t  different  hypothesis  on  the  Test  types  of  different  As  should  be  able  that  to  the  identify  groups of s u b j e c t s who were determined to be b a s i s of Canadian  reading Comprehension subtest b.  of t h i s paper was  the authors  dyslexia  which  patterns  of  Tests  of  Basic  scores.  of the t e s t have d e f i n e d are purported  reading and  31  Skills  to  spelling  be  different  indicated  scores  by  on the  D.D.T., the t e s t should have demonstrated these  variations.  2. Method of A n a l y s i s a.  Scores  discriminant  according  D.D.T.  were  analyzed  using  a  a n a l y s i s procedure to determine i f the two groups  of readers d i f f e r b.  on . the  significantly.  Data produced by the D.D.T. were scored and analyzed to  the  criteria  o u t l i n e d i n the  test  manual  to  determine i f d i f f e r e n t types of d y s l e x i a were apparent. 3. Method of P r e s e n t a t i o n of the R e s u l t s a.  Scores  and d i a g n o s i s were presented  b.  Scores were i l l u s t r a t e d  c.  Scores  i n Tables #1-6.  by Graphs #1-5.  and d i a g n o s i s were d e s c r i b e d and d i s c u s s e d i n  the t e x t of Chapter Four.  32  CHAPTER 4 Results  The  r e s u l t s of the D.D.T. were analyzed i n three  Reading  scores,  a r r i v e at a f i n a l  Spelling scores,  and a combined  steps—  pattern—to  d i a g n o s i s as to the type of d y s l e x i a present.  The a n a l y s i s of Reading  scores (Table 1)  proved d i f f i c u l t , as  c r i t e r i a f o r determining the decoding mode of examinees are not clearly  defined.  The Manual s t a t e s , "A value judgment must be  made  f o r the decoding mode of the examinee.  more  phonetic  levels  being  correct known  or e i d e t i c ?  The decoding mode f o r  used i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y  responses ("P") words.  Is i t r e l a t i v e l y  f o r flash-known  judged  by  ("E") words  able  comparing with  untimed-  eidetic.  approaching  h i s grade  placement  [investigator's  i s , a t t h i r d and f o u r t h grade l e v e l s ,  even-numbered  columns."  2)  ( p h o n e t i c ) mainly  ( G r i f f i n and Walton,  As might (Table  words  be expected,  d i d not f a l l  emphasis].  Also note  comprise  the P  1981, p.9)  the a c t u a l scores of the  as n e a t l y i n t o c a t e g o r i e s as  33  levels  the examinee d i d  much b e t t e r i n the P columns than i n the E columns. that  This  i s based on the f a c t that the examinee seemed to be  to "pick-up" phonetic words f a i r l y w e l l a_t grade  That  the  In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r examinee's case ...the  decoding mode i s r e l a t i v e l y more phonetic.than judgment  a l l grade  examinees d i d the  Table 1 Reading Diagnosis SUBJECT NUMBER  GRADE PLACEMENT  READING LEVEL  DIAGNOSIS INDICATED  C o n t r o l Group  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE  12 12 Col Col 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 12  7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3 4.3  Experimental Group 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 * denotes placement + denotes placement  7.3 7.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3  12 12 3* 12 12 6+ 4* 12 12 4+ 6 3* 5+ 3+  SLIGHT SLIGHT  SLIGHT SLIGHT  NONE NONE EQUAL NONE NONE DISEIDETIC DISEIDETIC NONE NONE EQUAL NONE EQUAL DISEIDETIC DISEIDETIC  s u b j e c t s who scored two or more grade l e v e l s subjects  who scored a t ,  34  or one grade l e v e l  below below,  Table 2 S u b j e c t s ' Raw Scores on D.D.T. SUBJECT NUMBER  EIDETIC READING  PHONETIC READING  UNKNOWN WORDS  EIDETIC SPELLING  PHONETIC SPELLING  C o n t r o l Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  097 100 099 102 091 097 095 101 100 085 095 095 071 085  004 001 006 002 002 005 009 004 002 006 005 005 012 007  009 009 005 006 007 008 006 005 008 009 010 010 007 018  005 006 009 005 004 009 007 006 006 005 006 004 003 003  009 009 010 009 003 010 008 007 009 008 005 010 007 005  003 008 005 003 007 006 003 004 009 006 002 005 002 006  007 010 003 010 010 007 005 009 005 005 008 006 002 009  Experimental Group 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  089 098 057 087 093 075 058 090 080 057 076 051 060 046  002 008 008 015 Oil 009 006 Oil 016 009 Oil 010 014 012  009 004 005 008 007 006 006 009 004 004 013 ' 009 006 012  C o n t r o l Group Mean S.D.  93.79 8.46  5.00 2.99  8.36 3.25  5.57 1.87  7.79 2.15  4.93 2.20  6.86 2.63  Experimental Group Mean S.D.  72.64 17.42  7.29 2.87  10.14 3.66  35  example i n the Manual.  The  c o n t r o l group could not be  analyzed  as d e s c r i b e d i n the Manual, as none of them had  a reading  below  scored  their  grade  placement.  highest  level  (College)  highest  level  (Grade 12).  grade placement, s t i l l  subjects  while eleven scored Only  exceeding  Of the experimental  Two  one  t h i s by two  grades  and  scored  one  grade placement.  three  or seven years) and  scores  by could  instructions. scoring  one  (exceeding  according  this  at l e v e l s approaching proved  to  be  placement. two  only seven to  of  words  two Two  scored  at  six  subjects' Manual's  made to apply  their  inconclusive,  reading due  a v a i l a b l e f o r phonetic a t t a c k  and  t->  (exceeding  the  overwhelming number of words read as flash-known and number  criteria  placement by f i v e ,  As a r e s u l t ,  analyzed  his  scoring  scored at the Grade 6 l e v e l  year).  second  s i x of the s u b j e c t s  For the others, an attempt was  criteria  However,  one  be  below  seven,  the  two  grade below placement and  scored at the Grade 12 l e v e l  placement  grades  Of the remaining  the  grades.  or more grades below placement,  subjects  the  group, three s u b j e c t s met  one  at  s u b j e c t scored near  of s c o r i n g two below  at  level  the  level. to  the  the small  an  even  smaller number of unknown words. The  scores of the seven lowest readers with reading  levels  at or below placement were analyzed as to number of E i d e t i c Phonetic  words read,  number of even (phonetic) and  phonetic) words read and  the number of even and  (non-  odd words which  were Unknown, to a s c e r t a i n whether more phonetic or  36  odd  and  non-phonetic  words were read and whether more phonetic or non-phonetic were not read. was  T h i s was done to determine  " r e l a t i v e l y more phonetic",  "relatively  i f the decoding mode  " r e l a t i v e l y more e i d e t i c "  while  four of  subjects  tended  pattern ( " r e l a t i v e l y  to  be  these four had anything  slightly  which  more  phonetic.  None  considered  a strong p a t t e r n l a r g e l y because the Test does  appear  or  equal."  Three of the s u b j e c t s had no apparent equal")  words  would  be not  to produce enough d i f f e r e n c e s f o r a judgment to be made  with any degree of c o n f i d e n c e . S p e l l i n g scores were analyzed using the c r i t e r i a pages  12 and 14 of the Manual,  Table  3  given  f o r the Reading s e c t i o n and produced  shows,  exact d i a g n o s i s .  provided on  as c i t e d here on page  these c r i t e r i a are l e s s ambiguous than a  from  Table  classified one  4  that  eight  and two f a l l i n g  experimental  subjects,  five  dyseidetic,  being  more  By using the Manual's c r i t e r i a of 50% c o r r e c t  control  subjects  as d y s l e x i c with f i v e being c l a s s i f i e d  dysphonetic,  those  clearer,  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between d y s l e x i c and normal s p e l l e r s , see  29. As  would  as  dysphonetic and  be  dyseidetic,  i n t o both c a t e g o r i e s .  ten were c l a s s i f i e d two  one can  Of the  dyslexic,  with  three  both  in  categories. Table  5  shows a summary of those s u b j e c t s  who scored at  or below grade l e v e l on the Reading t e s t with t h e i r reading and spelling type.  p a t t e r n s and a f i n a l composite It  should be noted  d i a g n o s i s of  dyslexia  that only one s u b j e c t had  anything  37  Table 3  Spelling  SUBJECT NUMBER  SCORE  Diagnosis  DYSEIDESIA  SCORE  DYSPHONESIA  C o n t r o l Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  5 6 9 5 4 9 7 6 6 5 6 4 3 3  MILD BORDERLINE ABOVE NORMAL MILD MILD ABOVE NORMAL BORDERLINE BORDERLINE BORDERLINE MILD BORDERLINE MILD MODERATE MODERATE  9 9 10 9 3 10 8 7 9 8 5 10 7 5  ABOVE NORMAL ABOVE NORMAL ABOVE NORMAL ABOVE NORMAL MODERATE ABOVE NORMAL NORMAL BORDERLINE ABOVE NORMAL NORMAL MILD ABOVE NORMAL BORDERLINE MILD  7 10 3 10 10 7 5 9 5 5 8 6 2 9  BORDERLINE ABOVE NORMAL MODERATE ABOVE NORMAL ABOVE NORMAL BORDERLINE MILD ABOVE NORMAL MILD MILD NORMAL BORDERLINE MODERATE ABOVE NORMAL  Experimental Group 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  3 8 5 3 7 6 3 4 9 6 2 5 2 6  MODERATE NORMAL MILD MODERATE BORDERLINE BORDERLINE MODERATE MILD ABOVE NORMAL BORDERLINE MODERATE MILD MODERATE BORDERLINE  38  Table 4 Summary of S p e l l i n g Diagnosis C o n t r o l Group Diagnosis  Eidetic  Phonetic  Above Normal  2  7  Normal  0  2  B o r d e r l i n e Normal  5  2  Mild  -5  2  Moderate  2  1  Marked  0  0  Experimental Group Diagnosis  Eidetic  Phonetic  Above Normal  1  5  Normal  1  1  B o r d e r l i n e Normal  4  3  Mild  3  3  Moderate  5  2  Marked  0  0  39  Table 5 Summary and Diagnosis with Reading and S p e l l i n g  SUBJECT NUMBER  READING  SPELLING DYSPHONESIA DYSEIDESIA  17  no p a t t e r n  Mild  Moderate*  20  Slight  Dyseidesia*  Borderline  Borderline  21 +  Slight  Dyseidesia  Mild  Moderate  24  no p a t t e r n  Borderline  Mild*  26  no p a t t e r n  Mild*  Borderline  27  Slight  Dyseidesia*  Moderate  Moderate  28  Slight  Dyseidesia*  Borderline  Above Normal  * denotes f i n a l  d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i c type  + denotes "Mixed" d i a g n o s i s  40  approaching  a  s p e l l i n g mode,  convincing  pattern  with a s l i g h t  have been  score (which,  used to i n d i c a t e d y s l e x i a ) .  the other d y s l e x i c s u b j e c t s ,  the  reading  and  d y s e i d e t i c reading p a t t e r n and  borderline dyseidetic spelling not  through  by i t s e l f ,  a  would  From the scores of  we must conclude  they a l l have  a  mixed p a t t e r n or that a d i a g n o s i s , i f i t i s to be made, must be based  on  r a t h e r weak evidence,  sector  alone.  The  from the Reading or  f i v e subtest scores produced by the  reading, Phonetic spelling  Spelling  D.D.T.—  reading, Unknown words-reading, Known w o r d s —  ( c o n v e n t i o n a l orthography) and Unknown w o r d s — s p e l l i n g  (phonetic  equivalents)  discriminant  were  a l s o analyzed  using  a  multiple  a n a y l s i s procedure (DISCRIMINANT) from the U.B.C.  S . P . S . S . — S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences, 9.00 (under MTS). which  score)  In t h i s procedure,  they  are m u l t i p l i e d .  A composite  score  i s determined by a l i n e a r combination  f o r each  separation generated  is  developed.  weights are determined f o r each v a r i a b l e by  v a r i a b l e s , which w i l l score  Version  a discriminant function  maximizes the d i f f e r e n c e between groups,  For t h i s f u n c t i o n , which  Eidetic  of  (discriminant the  weighted  provide the maximum s e p a r a t i o n of groups,  subject  of groups.  which  will  provide  The s t a n d a r d i z e d d i s c r i m i n a n t  f o r t h i s sample were: X/ ( E i d e t i c X^ (Phonetic  the  reading) reading)  Xj (Unknown words)  41  1.05 -0.11 -0.23  maximum weights  (Traditional spelling)  -0.07  Xt (Phonetic s p e l l i n g )  -0.31  These c o e f f i c i e n t s were used i n a d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n o f : 1.05X,  + O.IIX2 + O.23X3 + 0-07X^ + 0.31X5- =  X  D  to produce a composite, or d i s c r i m i n a n t score f o r each s u b j e c t . An  examination  weights  of the r e l a t i v e magnitude of the  reveals  that  E i d e t i c reading ( X j )  greatest  component of the  with  i s greater than the t o t a l of the other  Xj  ranging  from  weights.  3.5  composite score.  is  standardized by  far  the  The weight  to 15 times as great as any  four of  used  weights  the  other  As can be seen from Table 2, the E i d e t i c reading raw  score i s a l s o much l a r g e r than the other s c o r e s ,  ranging  46 to 102,  The means and  standard  while no other raw score exceeds 18.  deviations  f o r X/  of M = 93.79  and  S.D.  =  ( C o n t r o l ) and M = 72.64 and S.D. = 17.42 (Experimental) demonstrate compared  the  with  deviations  each  of  reading score, clearly  greatest  the  difference  other and with other four  that i s ,  between  the  scores.  means Thus,  The  groups and  when  standard  the  Eidetic  the number of words read by s i g h t , i s between  and c o n t r o l groups.  above c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l s o a p p l i e d to the means  each f u n c t i o n of the C o n t r o l Group and the Experimental producing Group  8.46  clearly  and overwhelmingly the g r e a t e s t d i s c r i m i n a t o r  the experimental  from  and  a  mean d i s c r i m i n a n t score of 92.99 f o r the 70.54  f o r the  Experimental  42  Group,  which  of  Group, Control is a  difference  i n means of 22.45.  By a p p l y i n g  weights to the mean d i s c r i m i n a n t  the  f u n c t i o n scores  discriminant  it is  clearly  confirmed that the two groups are d i s t i n c t . By using were  the above d i s c r i m i n a n t  d i v i d e d i n t o two groups.  (S #13 and  and  Two (14%)  14) ( n o n - d y s l e x i c )  group while four  (29%)  the 28 subjects  of the c o n t r o l  were placed  i n the  experimental  i n the c o n t r o l  group.  Twenty-  (79%) of the t o t a l sample were c o r r e c t l y placed  respective  groups.  in  In comparing t h i s h i t r a t e with i n t o two groups,  a  division  of the s u b j e c t s  of 13.22  was produced that i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.02  Thus, the d i v i s i o n of these s u b j e c t s by the d i s c r i m i n a n t has  their chance  a chi-squared  i n t o two d i s t i n c t  value level.  groups  a n a l y s i s treatment of the raw D.D.T. scores  only a 2% l i k e l i h o o d of occuring  hypothesis i s r e j e c t e d . I t should "under diagnosing"  group  of the experimental group (S #15, 16, 19  22) ( d y s l e x i c ) were placed  two  function,  by chance and the n u l l  be noted that the D.D.T. i s  by p l a c i n g only 43% of the t o t a l sample i n  the d y s l e x i c group which was 50% of sample. Part produced exhibited  One  of  very  few  any  the  D.D.T.,  reversals.  reversals.  None the  of  f o r dysnemkinesia, the  Control  Experimental  students  had  reversal  ("Z") while a Grade F i v e student (#26) had  and  "J").  reversals.  In  testing  As w e l l ,  Group  Group  two  A Grade S i x student (#22) had one two  ("B"  two s u b j e c t s made e r r o r s i n p r i n t i n g that  could  not be c l a s s i f i e d  (#18)  wrote  as r e v e r s a l s .  One Grade S i x  student  "0." f o r "U" i n both upper and lower case while  43  a  Grade also lower  F i v e student (#23) placed  "0" i n the c o r r e c t p o s i t i o n ,  case l e t t e r s .  significant diagnosis  misplaced "0" between "L" and both i n  This s e c t i o n of the D.D.T.  "M"  upper produced  r e s u l t s f o r t h i s sample and d i d not c o n t r i b u t e  of d y s l e x i a f o r any of the  44  subjects.  but and no to a  CHAPTER 5 Discussion  In used of  order  to determine whether or not the D.D.T.  f o r a v a l i d and d i r e c t d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i a , readers,  below  grade  one average and one at l e a s t two placement  administered procedure  the  the  on  a  D.D.T.  groups  group  Using  diagnosed  as d y s l e x i c .  d y s l e x i a proved  Using  were  analysis  different  misplacement of s u b j e c t s from both groups.  grades  test,  discriminant  were shown to be  p r e s c r i b e d methods of s c o r i n g ,  two groups  reading  achievement a  can be  with  some  the Manual's  only three of the s u b j e c t s were  The determination of t h e i r sub-type of  to be d i f f i c u l t  and i n c o n c l u s i v e .  Using a d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s procedure,  i t i s p o s s i b l e to  determine the d i f f e r e n c e between a group of normal readers a  group  of  dyslexic  readers.  However,  the d i s c r i m i n a n t  f u n c t i o n makes i t c l e a r that the two groups are being almost  totally  the  conclusion  the  subjects'  evidenced group read  by the number of flash-known words,  reading  vocabulary.  the f a c t that the two s u b j e c t s  who were misplaced within  two  subjects  in  misplaced  had  separated l e a d i n g to  that the D.D.T. i s simply a c t i n g as a t e s t sight  by  and  the  in  i s further the  Control  had the lowest E scores ( s i g h t  seconds) i n  the  This  Experimental  their  group,  (dyslexic)  highest E scores of  Those from the C o n t r o l group misplaced  45  the  while group  of  words  the who  dyslexic  four were  group.  because of t h e i r lower E  scores be  were  the  expected  higher  to  grade  misplaced  Grade  levels. of  seven s u b j e c t s and  two  t h e i r higher  the higher appears  vocabulary.  Using  list  and  showed  is  of  dyslexia  a  his  slight diseidetic  a  a l s o had  Two  this  of  in  the  sight  sense  tendency.  while  of  any of  Two  all  p a t t e r n and Subject  to  his  because  46  this  three  the t h i r d  (#26)  scores,  reading  was  (#21)  were and was  subject  based  a phonetic #21  and  spelling  of the s u b j e c t s (#17 while  the  group,  In a n a l y z i n g  as a Moderate dysphonetic,  dyslexic  by  the other  As a r e s u l t of these  no s p e c i f i c reading  Mixed  and  beginning  score lower than h i s e i d e t i c score.' a  powers,  of the s u b j e c t s (#17  pattern,  a Moderate d i s p h o n e s i a  could be c l a s s i f i e d  be  because  the D.D.T.  function  using the g u i d e l i n e s as on page 29,  having  Grade  a l l from the Experimental  as d y s l e x i c .  a B o r d e r l i n e dysphonetic. #17  discriminant  as quoted at the  found to have a M i l d d y s e i d e s i a . #21)  who,  Thus, although  not d i a g n o s t i c  no d i s c e r n i b l e reading  patterns  the  could be expected to produce  totally  only three s u b j e c t s ,  had  were  group  dyslexic patterns.  would be c l a s s i f i e d #26)  almost  from  Experimental  E scores  scores. good  normally  subjects  of the Grade s i x s u b j e c t s  grade placement,  is  those  the g u i d e l i n e s o u t l i n e d i n the Manual,  definition study,  t h e i r higher  should  T h i s type of i n f o r m a t i o n could be generated by  word  determining  who  four from the  have reasonably  discrimination  graded  The  s i g h t vocabulary  to  subjects  have lower scores than  because  of  four  upon  spelling  determined  pattern  was  diseidetic,  while  diseidetic. because  his spelling  was  more  disphonetic  Subject #26 would be c l a s s i f i e d  a Mild  than  diseidetic  h i s reading showed no p a t t e r n while h i s s p e l l i n g  Mildly  diseidetic.  From t h i s a n a l y s i s of the weakest  was  readers  i n the sample and the e x p l a n a t i o n s of how a d i a g n o s i s would reached  f o r each of them i t can be seen that the r e s u l t s  be are  i n c o n c l u s i v e , being d e r i v e d from scant i n d i c a t o r s of reading or spelling reading  difficulty. and  supporting  None of the s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d a  spelling  any  of  pattern.  The  these diagnoses  scarcity  must place  clear  of  evidence  them  i n some  question i n the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s mind. To  understand  why the diagnoses  a r r i v e d a t by the D.D.T. are  q u e s t i o n a b l e , i t i s h e l p f u l to look at the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Test and some of the problems experienced As was expected, normal  readers  D.D.T.  Most  Test, 50%  by the examiners.  and p r e d i c t e d by G r i f f i n and Walton, the  scored very high on the reading p o r t i o n of the of t h e i r reading l e v e l s ,  as determined  f a r exceeded t h e i r grade placement. (8) of  them f a i l e d  on the e i d e t i c s p e l l i n g  However, more than  the s p e l l i n g t e s t  c r i t e r i a shown on page 29.  according  Seven s u b j e c t s scored  test  phonetic  t e s t while passing the e i d e t i c t e s t .  seem  earlier,  to  to the  below  50%  t e s t , with two of them a l s o f a i l i n g the  phonetic  also  by the  while one s u b j e c t scored l e s s than 50%  be at odds with  Boder's  These  findings,  as  on the results quoted  " t h a t normal readers can w r i t e c o r r e c t l y to d i c t a t i o n  70 to 100 per cent of t h e i r s i g h t vocabulary  47  at grade l e v e l and  below, and can w r i t e good phonetic  e q u i v a l e n t s of 80 to 100 per  cent of words not yet i n t h e i r s i g h t vocabulary." This  apparent anomaly may be explained  the  Control  (Boder, 1971)  by the f a c t that a l l of  group exceeded t h e i r grade l e v e l i n  the  reading  tests  and thus were expected to s p e l l w e l l beyond t h e i r  level  and could probably  were they  did  only  subjects  i t should  slightly  be noted that the Experimental spelling  s c o r i n g l e s s than 50% on one or the  eidetic  failing  the phonetic  on -the phonetic  spelling test, test  tests, both  is  neither  teachers  with  of  nine Seven  them  while two s u b j e c t s scored  also  less  than  the e i d e t i c  test  only.  t e s t d e s p i t e the f a c t that p h o n e t i i c  a skill  group  tests.  t e s t with three  Far more s u b j e c t s from both groups f a i l e d than the phonetic  better  level.  worse on the  failed  50%  have been expected to do much  s p e l l i n g at grade  However,  grade  taught  spelling  i n school nor i s i t considered  to be a p a r t i c u l a r l y  by  desirable s k i l l .  Twelve of the  14 C o n t r o l group and 10 of the 14 Experimental  group had higher  phonetic  scores than e i d e t i c  scores.  the  t e s t because no l a t i t u d e  the  eidetic  responses regard, to  help  is  list,  can be allowed while  the  a wide  p o s s i b l e when s p e l l i n g  the Manual l a c k s c l a r i t y .  equivalent. judged  spelling  T h i s i s a bias b u i l t  examiner The  to decide  i n the s c o r i n g range  phonetically.  of  correct In  this  There are few samples given what  is  only i n f o r m a t i o n given i s :  a  good  phonetic  "The examinee i s  as to the c o r r e c t n e s s of s p e l l i n g by how  48  of  into  the  phonetic  equivalent correct  o f t h e word  f o r t h e word  i s written.  delight,  No g u i d e l i n e s a r e g i v e n should  F o r example,  and " s o r d " f o r t h e word  as t o how  strictly  rules  be e x p e c t e d  suggest  t h a t t h e judgment o f a good p h o n e t i c  with  t h e age or r e a d i n g  would  seem  to t h i s  of  the phonetic  more  specific  grade l e v e l  should  level in  be e x p e c t e d  increases.  explaining  and  equivalents  while  increasing  expectations  f o r higher  previously  subjective subject's reading tended to  get  Phonetic tended was  levels  or  also  level found  a level  t o come t o g e t h e r .  words  scores.  Subjects  reached  At t h e s e  was  never  and d i f f i c u l t words  to  very  and  read  where  levels,  still  of  reading.  49  a  his  tended  than  E and P  where  a  correctly  column  the  scores  a diagnosis  g r e a t , u s u a l l y n o t more  and than  T h i s made a d i a g n o s i s  as i t had t o be b a s e d  a small  of  make  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e number o f s i g h t  words r e a d  of  issue  approaching  the s i g h t  was  far good  s t r e n g t h or weakness  one o r two words s e p a r a t i n g t h e s c o r e s .  number  their  of  the  difficult  c o r r e c t i n the E i d e t i c  column u n t i l  circumspect  It  subjects.  when a s u b j e c t was  ceiling,  words  examples  addressing  i t was  t o overwhelm t h e o t h e r  t o be made,  phonetic  noted,  reading  more  subject.  o f s u b j e c t s as  giving  d e c i s i o n on t h e r e l a t i v e  level,  should  The Manual needs t o be  phonetic  As  m e n t i o n or  equivalent  of the  of  w r i t e r t h a t a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n  rules  grade or r e a d i n g  n o r do t h e a u t h o r s  is  soared."  the a p p l i c a t i o n  phonetic  vary  "delit"  difference  upon  between  a  small  modes  of  It  i s the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s o p i n i o n that a d i a g n o s i s might be  assisted for  i f a l l reading e r r o r s were recorded  later analysis.  see  In t h i s way,  on the  protocol  an examiner could not  only  the types of words read or not read but could a l s o see the  types of e r r o r s made by the s u b j e c t . error  could  The predominant type  form a component of the d e c i s i o n on the  type  of of  d y s l e x i a along with the p r e s e n t l y - u s e d number and type of words most e a s i l y The the  read.  validity  of a d i a g n o s i s might be f u r t h e r enhanced  s u b j e c t read more graded l i s t s .  examiner to administer beyond  the  examinee's  The Manual  i n s t r u c t s the  the reading t e s t up to one grade reading  level  (50% of  In order to get a b e t t e r f e e l i n g f o r the  strongest  mode  administer  more  probe  reader's  the  reading  words  examinee's  beneficial  i n order to  p r e f e r r e d method of word a t t a c k  to  further  near h i s  limits.  To is  of the graded word l i s t s  level  sight  correct.)  of reading i t would seem to be  if  f u r t h e r expand  the i n f o r m a t i o n from which a  diagnosis  to be made i t would be h e l p f u l i f a supplementary word  were s u p p l i e d f o r each grade l e v e l so that the examiner, determining subject's  a s u b j e c t ' s reading l e v e l , eidetic  and phonetic  with a more comprehensive word The enlarging  above  suggestions  list after  could f u r t h e r probe the  a b i l i t y at h i s reading  level  list. would  a l l have  the • e f f e c t  of  the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n at the examiner's d i s p o s a l  from which to make a judgment  50  of the reader's  preferred  method  of word a t t a c k .  With i n c r e a s e d i n f o r m a t i o n a p a t t e r n may  more c l e a r , making a d i a g n o s i s e a s i e r and The  more v a l i d .  b a s i s of the D.D.T., Boder's concept of the e i d e t i c  phonetic  reader/speller,  seems  r e s e a r c h e r s as p r e v i o u s l y quoted. strength  and  weakness,  s p e l l i n g , would remediate  be  to  be  supported  by  The  knowledge of a  very u s e f u l  to a  teacher  factor  to this  would be a v a l u a b l e part of a l a r g e r b a t t e r y of  to the i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s of t h i s study, that  and  provide  t e s t s used to diagnose a s u b j e c t ' s l e a r n i n g problems.  fact  student's  attempting  T h i s t e s t helps to  or  many  or h i s p r e f e r r e d mode of reading  the weak reader.  i n f o r m a t i o n and  due  be  the s i g h t reading  between  groups and  score was  that few  a c t u a l l y were weak enough readers  the  However,  including  main  the  discriminant  of the Experimental  on the,D.D.T. to be  group  diagnosed  d y s l e x i c , the D.D.T. cannot be recommended as an instrument  for  i  a  d i r e c t d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i a .  that  most c l i n i c i a n s would s t i l l  on a f u l l  that The  spelling would  preferred make  word  and  assessment  the concept of t e s t i n g and  i n two  modes should  lists,  phonetic  provide  of  a  with t h e i r  words,  pupil's  the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,  analyzing  valuable  a plan careful  recognition The  s c o r i n g and  51  One.  for  reading  information remediation.  combination  could a l s o be u s e f u l as a  word  mode of word a t t a c k .  opinion  want to base such a d i a g n o s i s  be h e l p f u l i n developing  graded  eidetic  writer's  b a t t e r y of t e s t s , as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  In summary, and  I t i s the  level  and  of  quick his  Test could be improved to a n a l y s i s more  accurate.  The  Manual  needs  guidelines examiner  on is  whether  to i n c l u d e more  specific  s c o r i n g the phonetic able  instruction  spelling test  to determine more  quickly  a p a r t i c u l a r word i s a good phonetic  and  that  accurately  be obtained at h i s reading l e v e l .  helpful  to  note reading e r r o r s  on  A more  s p e l l i n g at the c r i t i c a l  diagnosis  the  protocol.  scores  as  as  reported  to the p a t t e r n s of reading by Boder and  be  Thus,  subject's  cited  in  easier and  Chapter  with  spelling Two.  A  knowledge of these p a t t e r n s would be more v a l u a b l e i n making diagnosis now  be  than made  are the raw  a  l e v e l near h i s c e i l i n g .  of d y s l e x i a type would be made  guidelines  spelling  I t would f u r t h e r  d i a g n o s i s would be based upon a l a r g e r sample of the reading and  It  were provided  that a l a r g e r sample of the s u b j e c t ' s reading and  could  an  equivalent.  would a l s o be h e l p f u l i f supplementary word l i s t s so  so  and  numbers on which a d i a g n o s i s  according to the s u b j e c t i v e  guidelines  a  must  of  the  that  the  Manual.  Suggestions This  investigation  D.D.T. and but  the  enough  f o r Further  i t s authors'  produced some concept  indications  of d y s l e x i a types may  r e s u l t s l a c k c o n c l u s i v e proof that the Test data  subtypes. larger  Research  to make a d i r e c t d i a g n o s i s of The  and  investigation  present  more was  dyslexia  be  valid  produces and  its  r e s e a r c h should be r e p l i c a t e d using  specific  sample.  The  chosen on the b a s i s of  52  sample their  low  for  a  this  reading  comprehension results words  measured  by the  C.T.B.S.  As  most of the s u b j e c t s read  at a much higher l e v e l than t h e i r comprehension  other  of  as  on the D.D.T. show,  indicating  to  scores  most  of  them were not t r u l y  their  low  comprehension  have  on a graded word l i s t  D.D.T.  it  patterns would  would  levels.  If  Many  a  sample placement  t e s t s i m i l a r to that used by the  be more l i k e l y  to  produce  more  of reading and s p e l l i n g on the D.D.T.  likely  scores,  contributed  students were chosen on the b a s i s of below grade  scores  single  "word-blind."  f a c t o r s not assessed by the D.D.T. may  the  divergent  Such a  sample  make the r e s u l t s of the D.D.T. c l e a r e r than  the  present sample d i d and would provide the i n v e s t i g a t o r with more useful  data  dyslexia,  from which to a s c e r t a i n whether  the  patterns  of  which the Test i s p r i m a r i l y designed to i n d i c a t e , do  exist. Dr.  Boder has now  produced her own  1982) with the same i n t e n t as the D.D.T conducted using  As  a  whether  result  of  levels,  they agree or produce c o n f l i c t i n g the  be D.D.T.  inconclusive  nature  of  the  evidence. present  a comparison should be  e i t h e r t e s t produces a c l e a r e r p a t t e r n of a b i l i t i e s  disabilities  than was  reported by t h i s r e s e a r c h e r .  Manual appears to be much more comprehensive  53  raw  p a t t e r n s and diagnoses to  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a major concern i n making whether  Research should  Such a comparison should i n c l u d e  reading and s p e l l i n g  determine  (Boder & J a r r i c o ,  to compare the r e s u l t s of the Boder with the  the same sample.  scores,  test  and  As Boder's  than the D.D.T.'s,  giving  f a r more  i n f o r m a t i o n on how to  spelling  results  valuable  to attempt to apply  interpretation  to  facilitate  The  premise  of the D.D.T.  dyslexics.  is  i t would  to a s c e r t a i n whether they  that  would  T h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n t e s t s the b a s i c  that i d e n t i f i a b l e subtypes e x i s t  Although they  i f distinct  strengths  should  other  tests.  with  a  use Boder's t e s t ,  subtypes e x i s t ,  further  tasks.  Using  Their  s u b j e c t s with  reading  show greater a b i l i t y the Kaufman  should  show  thesis  different  tasks while  a  p r o c e s s i n g f a c t o r s , they this  on  reader  parallel  the  disphonetic  i n simultaneous  processing  B a t t e r y to t e s t  the  correlation  between Boder's d y s l e x i c types and simultaneous and  As  research  Hooper and Hynd suggest that a d i s e i d e t i c  i n sequential processing should  among  produce d i s t i n c t and p r e d i c t a b l e p r o f i l e s  s t r e n g t h i n phonetic  reader  thesis.  be  to produce a c l e a r d i a g n o s i s .  be conducted e q u a l l y w e l l with the D.D.T.  strength  and  paper by Hooper and Hynd (1983) suggests an important  area f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .  could  diagnosis,  reading  her g u i d e l i n e s to the s c o r i n g and  of the D.D.T.  improve the D.D.T.'s a b i l i t y  a  compare  d i d not f i n d evidence  sequential  to support  type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n c h a l l e n g e s  the  their basis  upon which the D.D.T. was developed, i t merits more r e s e a r c h to test  the fundamental  v a l i d i t y of any t e s t which  delineate a d i f f e r e n t i a l  d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i a .  54  attempts  to  REFERENCES  Aaron, P.G. D y s l e x i a , an imbalance i n c e r e b r a l i n f o r m a t i o n processing s t r a t e g i e s . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1978, 47, 699-706. Armstrong, R.J, and Jensen, J.A. Slosson I n t e l l i g e n c e Test (SIT) f o r C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s , 1981 norms t a b l e s a p p l i c a t i o n and development. East Aurora, New York: Slosson E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i c a t i o n s Inc., 1981. Bannatyne, A. D i a g n o s i s : A note on r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of WISC scaled scores. J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1977, _7, 272-273. Benton, A.L. D y s l e x i a : E v o l u t i o n of a concept. the Orton S o c i e t y , 1980, _3_P_, 10-26.  B u l l e t i n of  Boder, E. A n e u r o p e d i a t r i c approach to school b e h a v i o r a l and l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s : Diagnosis and management. In Hellmuth, J . (ed.) Learning D i s o r d e r s , V o l . 2, Seattle: Special Child P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1966, 15-44. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening procedure based on three c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a t t e r n s of reading and s p e l l i n g . In Bateraan, B.D. (ed.) Learning D i s o r d e r s , V o l . 4, S e a t t l e : S p e c i a l C h i l d P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1971, 298- 342. Developmental d y s l e x i a : A d i a g n o s t i c approach based on three a t y p i c a l r e a d i n g - s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s . Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687. Boder, Elena, & J a r r i c o , S y l v i a . The Boder Test of ReadingSpelling Patterns. New York: Grunne and S t r a t t o n , 1982. Borg, Walter R., & G a l l , Meredith D. E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , an introduction. Third E d i t i o n . New York: Longman Inc., 1979. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. Independence of reading and s p e l l i n g i n backward and normal readers. Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1979, .21 , 504-514. Buros, Oscar K. (ed.) The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, New J e r s e y : The Gryphon Press, 1972. C o l l e t t e , M.A. D y s l e x i a and c l a s s i c pathognomic s i g n s . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1979, 48, 1055-1062.  55  Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. M u l t i v a r i a t e data a n a l y s i s . York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1971. Eisenberg, L. Reading and management. 39-55.  New  disorders: Strategies for recognition B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1979, 29,  E l l i s , A.W. Developmental and a c q u i r e d d y s l e x i a : Some o b s e r v a t i o n s on Jorm (1979). C o g n i t i o n , 1979, 1_, 413-420. F i s c h e r , F.W., Liberman, J.T., & Shankweiler, D. Reading r e v e r s a l s and developmental d y s l e x i a : A f u r t h e r study. Cortex, 1978, 14, 496-510. G r i f f i n , J.R., & Walton, Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a : D i s t r i b u t o r s , 1981.  H.N. D y s l e x i a Determination T e s t . Los I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s and Equipment  Gross, K., & Rothenberg, S. An examination of methods used to t e s t the v i s u a l p e r c e p t u a l d e f i c i t hypothesis of d y s l e x i a . J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1979, 1_2_, 670-677. Hooper, S.R., & Hynd, G.K. D i f f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s i s of subtypes of developmental d y s l e x i a with the Kaufman Assessment B a t t e r y f o r C h i l d r e n (K-ABC). Unpublished paper, U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 1983. Huck, S.W., Cormier, W.H., & Bounds, W.G., J r . Reading s t a t i s t i c s and r e s e a r c h . New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Jorm, A.F. The c o g n i t i v e and n e u r o l o g i c a l b a s i s of developmental d y s l e x i a : A t h e o r e t i c a l framework and C o g n i t i o n , 1979a, 7_, 19-33.  review.  The nature of the reading d e f i c i t i n developmental d y s l e x i a : A r e p l y to E l l i s . C o g n i t i o n , 1979b, 1_, 421-433. King, E t h e l M. (ed.) Canadian T e s t s of B a s i c S k i l l s , manual f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , s u p e r v i s o r s and c o u n s e l l o r s . Thomas Nelson and Sons (Canada) L t d . , 1975. Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E.K. Developmental f a c t o r s i n reading and w r i t i n g backwardness. In Money, J . (ed.) The d i s a b l e d reader: Education of the d y s l e x i c c h i l d . B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1966. Leisman, G. A e t o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n d y s l e x i a : Ocular-motor f a c t o r s i n v i s u a l p e r c e p t u a l response e f f i c i e n c y . P e r c e p t u a l . a_nd Motor S k i l l s , 1978, .47, 675-678. Lynch, M.D., & Huntsberger,-D.V. Elements of s t a t i s t i c a l i n f e r e n c e f o r education and psychology. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., 1976. 56  Masland, R.L. Subgroups i n d y s l e x i a : Issues of d e f i n i t i o n . B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y . 1979, 29., 23-29. M a t t i s , S., French, J.H., & Rapin, J . D y s l e x i a i n c h i l d r e n and young a d u l t s : Three independent n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l syndromes. Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1975, 17, 150-163. M i n d e l l , P. D y s l e x i a and s e q u e n t i a l order e r r o r s i n r e a d i n g . B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1978, 28, 124-141. Murray, M.E. P s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g disorders. B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1978, 28.» 142-159. Myklebust, H.R. Development and P i c t u r e Story Language T e s t . 1965.  d i s o r d e r s of w r i t t e n language: New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n ,  Quiros, J.B. de Dysphasia and d y s l e x i a i n school c h i l d r e n . F o l i a Phoniatr i c a , 1964, 1_6, 201-? (Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687.) R u t t e r , M., T i z a r d , J . , & Whitmore, K. (ed.) Education, and behaviour. London, England: Longman Group L t d . ,  health 1970.  Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I.Y. Reading behavior i n d y s l e x i a : Is there a d i s t i n c t i v e pattern? B u l l e t i n of Orton S o c i e t y , 1978, 28, 144-153.  the  S k l a r , B., Hanley, J . , & Simmons, W.W. An E.E.G. experiment aimed toward i d e n t i f y i n g d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n . Nature, 1972, 240-246. Slosson, Richard L. Slosson I n t e l l i g e n c e Test (SIT) and O r a l Reading Test (SORT) f o r C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s . Second E d i t i o n . East Aurora, New York: Slosson E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i c a t i o n s Inc., 1981. Smith, M.M. Patterns of i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s i n e d u c a t i o n a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l dissertation, Claremont C o l l e g e , C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. (Developmental Medicine and C h i l d Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687.) Tatsuoka, M.M. M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s : Techniques f o r e d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971 Van  den Bos, K.P. disabilities. 94-111.  C o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s and l e a r n i n g B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1980,  57  30,  Van de Geer, J.P. I n t r o d u c t i o n to m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s f o r the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . San F r a n c i s c o : W.H, Freeman and Company, 1971. Weaver, P.A. Comprehension, r e c a l l and d y s l e x i a : A proposal f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of schema theory. B u l l e t i n of the Orton S o c i e t y , 1978,.28, 92-113.  58  APPENDIX  6  Table C. T. B. S . and used  is  included  i n the  SIT i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  to determine that they met  their  appendix  r e s p e c t i v e groups.  to  the c r i t e r i a  the  in  A summary of t h i s i n f o r m a i t i o n  was  Appendix  raw  scores obtained by the s u b j e c t s  Experimental  (Xy) and  shows  words.  A  having This  Group tends  results  t e s t s (X^,  the Experimental  Phonetic words read from  As would be  Group to  have  expected, Unknown Group Group. Phonetic  scores are somewhat i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l .  That i s ,  read more words by s i g h t had  with  The  Experimental  fewer s i g h t words read,  p h o n e t i c a l l y and  words than the C o n t r o l .  the  fewer  Group,  words on  the  had more words  to  thus were able to read more  Phonetic  However, t o t a l words read would  favour the C o n t r o l Group over the Experimental From  reading  more  Eidetic  that  scores  (Xj?) than the C o n t r o l the  as  and  hand,  attempt  be observed  scores i n E i d e t i c X^).  the f a c t that  to be read p h o n e t i c a l l y .  other  D.D.T.,  to have a l a r g e r range of  Group has higher  the C o n t r o l Group who left  illustrate  b i a s of the Test r e s u l t s i n the Experimental  more  reading  the  From the graphs i t may  both s p e l l i n g  3  Graph  on  3.  i n Chapter  a l s o c o n t a i n s f i v e graphs which  while the C o n t r o l  was  for inclusion  The  t a b u l a t e d i n Table 2 .  the  on the s u b j e c t s which  i n c l u d e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample found  the  present  Group.  graphs i t should a l s o be r e a d i l y  E i d e t i c reading overwhelms the other scores i n  59  still  apparent  why  differentiating  the  groups.  Graph  1  illustrates  Experimental  group's E i d e t i c  tendency  be c o n s i d e r a b l y lower  to  the  wide  range  ( s i g h t ) reading scores and than the  Control  while  the other graphs do not demonstrate the same  From  this  Experimental are  the  graph  who  clearly  however, Unknown Eidetic  will words  also  16,  be  19,  scores of that was  the C o n t r o l Group. not  can  Group (#15,  highest  s u b j e c t #13,  it  of  seen  why  the their  group's, diversity.  four  of  the  22) were misplaced, as they group.  Likewise  it  shows  misplaced, to be an unusually low score i n Subject #14  explained  i s the only misplaced  by Graph 1.  show that Subject #14 which,  in  Reference  Graph  3,  has an obvious number  of  combination  score, l i k e l y e x p l a i n s why  60  with a  to  subject  relatively  t h i s s u b j e c t was  low  misplaced.  Table 6 P r e l i m i n a r y Information on Subjects  C o n t r o l Group  GRADE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3 4.3  GENDER M M F F M F M F F F M F M F  C.T.B.S. VOCABULARY 7.5 7.5 6.8 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.9 5.5 6.1 5.6 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.9  C.T.B.S. COMPREHENSION  SLOSSON  7.1 7.7 7.4 7.4 6.7 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.2 4.3 4.3  89 106 106 98 97 108 100 91 100 94 102 109 109 101  5.0 3.7 4.3 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.5 3.3 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.9 2.5  86 86 85 116 103 103 91 101 91 101 95 97 94 92  Experimental Group  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  7.3 7.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3  M F F M F M M M F F .M F F M  6.7 5.5 4.7 5.7 4.8 6.0 3.5 5.5 3.8 2.5 3.3 2.8 3.3 2.1  61  !i  Graph 1 Raw Score - E i d e t i c Reading (X^)  1  2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONTROL GROUP EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SUBJECT NUMBER 62  Raw S c o r e  -  Graph 2 P h o n e t i c R e a d i n g (X2)  Raw S c o r e -  Graph 3 Unknown Words  Reading  (X3)  Raw  Graph 4 Score - E i d e t i c S p e l l i n g  (X4)  Raw  Graph 5 Score - Phonetic S p e l l i n g  (X5)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 212 27
Canada 58 6
China 16 16
Australia 15 1
Philippines 8 1
Germany 8 3
South Africa 4 0
Malaysia 3 1
United Kingdom 3 0
Ukraine 2 0
Italy 2 0
Mexico 2 0
India 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 104 11
Belmont 20 0
Shenzhen 13 16
Ashburn 12 0
Montreal 12 4
Batesville 9 17
Austin 8 0
Fullerton 7 3
Chattanooga 7 0
Sherwood Park 6 0
Toronto 6 0
Regina 5 0
Mountain View 5 2

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054478/manifest

Comment

Related Items