UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A validity study of the dyslexia determination test (Griffin & Walton,1981) 1984

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
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
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' in the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1984 © William A.R. Simmons, 1984 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 3E-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT Dyslexia has always been diagnosed by exclusion after an extensive battery of tests has eliminated a l l etiology. The Dyslexia Determination Test (D.D•T.) i s an attempt to provide a direct diagnosis of dyslexia and to categorize the d i s a b i l i t y into various subgroups which may lead to more prescriptive remediation. The. purpose of this investigation was to study the v a l i d i t y of the D.D.T. by administering i t to two d i s t i n c t groups of readers (dyslexic and normal) to ascertain whether the test could discriminate between the two groups and further to examine the efficacy of the test's d i v i s i o n of subjects into types of dyslexia as defined by the authors of the D.D.T. The sample taken from grades four to seven pupils in four Burnaby Schools, was comprised of two groups: a Control Group defined as average readers and an Experimental Group defined as at least two years below grade placement i n reading with no known etiology. 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 scores. I n i t i a l screening was done by conferencing with administrators, counsellors and teachers. Further screening was done with the Slosson Intelligence Test. A f i n a l sample of 14 Control and 14 Experimental subjects was i d e n t i f i e d . A l l were administered the D.D.T. by examiners who were not aware that the subjects comprised two groups. i i Results of the D. D. T. were analyzed by a discriminant analysis procedure. Scoring and analysis were also done by the examiners following the Manual procedures and guidelines. The discriminant analysis demonstrated that the D.D.T. was able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the groups to a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l . Manual scoring and analysis resulted in few subjects being i d e n t i f i e d as dyslexic with no clear indicators of the types of dyslexia defined by the authors. One type of dyslexia was not indicated in any subject. Limitations of the study and the Test were noted and discussed. Suggestions were made for further research and for improvements to the Test, procedures and the Manuai. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v L i s t of Graphs v i Acknowledgements v i i Dedication v i i i Chapter 1 The Problem 1 De f i n i t i o n of Terms 2 Overview 3 Statement of the Problem 5 Statement of the Null Hypothesis 8 Chapter 2 A Review of the Literature 9 Chapter 3 Methodology 21 Population and Sample 21 Description of Instruments 24 Administration and Scoring 31 Research Design 31 Chapter 4 Results 33 Chapter 5 Discussion 45 Suggestions for Further Research 52 References 55 Appendix 59 i v LIST OF TABLES 1 Reading Diagnosis 34 2 Subjects' Raw Scores on D.D.T. 35 3 Spelling Diagnosis 38 4 Summary of Spelling Diagnosis 39 5 Summary and Diagnosis with Reading and Spelling 40 6 Preliminary Information on Subjects 61 v LIST OF GRAPHS 1 Raw S c o r e — E i d e t i c Reading (X/) 62 2 Raw Score—Phonetic Reading (X^) 63 3 Raw Score—Unknown Words Reading (X^) 64 4 Raw S c o r e — E i d e t i c Spelling (X^) 65 5 Raw Score—Phonetic Spelling (X^) 66 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank: My t h e s i s chairman, Dr. Buff O l d r i d g e , f o r h i s advice and suggestions; Dr. Walter Boldt f o r h i s s t a t i s t i c a l advice and h e l p f u l suggestions; Dr. Barbara Holmes f o r her i n t e r e s t and adv i c e . The D i s t r i c t Superintendent of the Burnaby School Board and the 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 teachers who welcomed me i n t o t h e i r schools and classrooms and who provided my primary source of screening of s u b j e c t s . The parents and c h i l d r e n f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n i n t h i s study. My examiners, C a r l and Mont, who generously and c h e e r f u l 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 . My brother, John, who gave c o u n t l e s s hours of a s s i s t a n c e i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n and ty p i n g of t h i s paper. My f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s who provided i n t e r e s t and support to "keep me going." Without the kind help and c o n t r i b u t i o n of each of you t h i s t h e s i s could never have been completed. v i i 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 v i i i CHAPTER 1 The P r o b l e m As t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s s t u d y i s t h e D y s l e x i a D e t e r m i n a t i o n T e s t , a t e s t o f d y s l e x i a , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d th e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e term as i t w i l l h e n c e f o r e t h be u s e d . The U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s , i n P u b l i c Law 94-142, d e f i n e s c h i l d r e n w i t h s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s a s : "Those c h i l d r e n who have a d i s o r d e r i n one or more of t h e b a s i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g or i n u s i n g l a n g u a g e , spoken or w r i t t e n , w h i c h d i s o r d e r may m a n i f e s t i t s e l f i n i m p e r f e c t a b i l i t y t o l i s t e n , t h i n k , speak, r e a d , w r i t e , s p e l l or do m a t h e m a t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s . Such d i s o r d e r s i n c l u d e s u c h c o n d i t i o n s as p e r c e p t u a l h a n d i c a p s , b r a i n i n j u r y , m i n i m a l b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n , d y s l e x i a and d e v e l o p m e n t a l a p h a s i a . Such term does not i n c l u d e c h i l d r e n who have l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s w h i c h a r e p r i m a r i l y t h e r e s u l t o f v i s u a l , h e a r i n g or motor h a n d i c a p s , or m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n , or e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e , or o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l , c u l t u r a l or economic d i s a d v a n t a g e . " ( S e c . 5 ( b ) ( 4 ) ) T h i s i s a g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , w h i c h i n c l u d e s d y s l e x i a , w h i l e more s p e c i f i c a l l y , d y s l e x i a i s d e f i n e d by t h e a u t h o r s of t h e D y s l e x i a D e t e r m i n a t i o n T e s t as "a c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a m i n i m a l b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n a nd/or d i f f e r e n t i a l b r a i n f u n c t i o n , m a n i f e s t i n g i t s e l f as a s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y f o r l a n g u a g e . T h a t i s , r e a d i n g ( d e c o d i n g ) . , s p e l l i n g ( e n c o d i n g ) and 1 w r i t i n g ( i n v o l v i n g l e t t e r s o unds, graphemes and n e m k i n e s i s ) " . ( G r i f f i n and W a l t o n , 1981) U s i n g t h e above s t a t e m e n t s i t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t d y s l e x i a i s a s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y i n t h e a r e a o f l a n g u a g e w i t h o u t an i d e n t i f i a b l e c a u s e . T h i s d i s a b i l i t y i s i n d i c a t e d by d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g r e s u l t i n g f r o m an i n a b i l i t y t o use a knowledge o f l e t t e r sounds ( p h o n i c s ) o r word shapes ( g e s t a l t ) a n d / o r d i f f i c u l t y i n u s i n g memory o f movement ( n e m k i n e s i a ) t o c o r r e c t l y w r i t e t h e l e t t e r s o f t h e a l p h a b e t . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s an o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f terms used t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p a p e r . D y s l e x i a The s u b j e c t s who were c a l l e d d y s l e x i c i n t h i s s t u d y were i d e n t i f i e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : a. C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s r e a d i n g C o m p r e h e n s i o n s u b t e s t s c o r e s a t l e a s t two y e a r s below a c t u a l g r a d e p l a c e m e n t ; b. S l o s s o n I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t I.Q. s c o r e s o f 85 or above i n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e s l o w l e a r n e r s ; c. no p h y s i c a l h a n d i c a p s which might be a c a u s a l f a c t o r o f t h e low r e a d i n g s c o r e , s u c h as v i s u a l or h e a r i n g i m p a i r m e n t ; d. no p r i m a r y e m o t i o n a l h a n d i c a p s u c h as s e v e r e b e h a v i o u r d i s o r d e r or h y p e r a c t i v i t y ; e. no s e c o n d l a n g u a g e i n t e r f e r e n c e , t h a t i s , E n g l i s h i s the p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e o f the home. 2 Dysnemkinesia A type of d y s l e x i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d e f i c i t i n the a b i l i t y to develop motor g e s t a l t s f o r w r i t t e n symbols, i n d i c a t e d by performance on the D.D.T. as r e v e r s a l s i n p r i n t e d numbers and/or l e t t e r s . Dyspnonesia A type of d y s l e x i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d e f i c i t i n symbol sound i n t e g r a t i o n , and the i n a b i l i t y to develop phonetic word a n a l y s i s s y n t h e s i s s k i l l s , i n d i c a t e d by performance on the D.D.T. as a low number of words read by phonetic a n a l y s i s (each word to be read w i t h i n ten seconds) i n r e l a t i o n to the number of words read by s i g h t (each word to be read w i t h i n two seconds). I t may a l s o be i n d i c a t e d i f l e s s than 50% of the words s p e l l e d by phonetic e q u i v a l e n t are c o r r e c t . D y s e i d e s i a A type of d y s l e x i a c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a d e f i c i t i n the a b i l i t y to perc e i v e whole words as v i s u a l g e s t a l t s and match with a u d i t o r y g e s t a l t s , i n d i c a t e d by performance on the D.D.T. as a low number of s i g h t words read (each word to be read w i t h i n two seconds) i n r e l a t i o n to the number of words read by phonetic a n a l y s i s (each word to be read w i t h i n ten seconds). I t may a l s o be i n d i c a t e d i f l e s s than 50% of the words s p e l l e d by t r a d i t i o n a l orthography are c o r r e c t . Overview The i n c i d e n c e of d y s l e x i a has never been f u l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d , 3 but i t a p p e a r s t o be a w i d e l y o c c u r r i n g p r o b l e m . A c c o r d i n g t o G r i f f i n and W a l t o n (1981) the I n s t i t u t e f o r S c i e n t i f i c I n f o r m a t i o n e s t i m a t e d t h e r e were 1,200,000 d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n i n the U.S.A. i n 1980. O t h e r " e s t i m a t e s o f t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y r a n g e d f r o m 10% t o a h a r d l y c r e d i b l e 30%" ( B e n t o n , 1975; 1980) One of t h e l a r g e s t s t u d i e s o f l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s was c o n d u c t e d by R u t t e r , T i z a r d , and Whitmore ( 1 9 7 0 ) . In t h e i r s t u d y o f 11,000 c h i l d r e n o f t h e I s l e o f Wight, t h e y c h o s e a group of 2,334 9 t o 11 y e a r o l d s t o s t u d y i n t e l l e c t u a l and e d u c a t i o n a l r e t a r d a t i o n . In t h i s group t h e y f o u n d " T h e r e were 86 c h i l d r e n whose r e a d i n g a c c u r a c y or c o m p r e h e n s i o n was a t l e a s t 28 months r e t a r d e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t p r e d i c t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r age and i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s g i v e s a p r e v a l e n c e of 3.7% f o r s p e c i f i c r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n . T h e r e were 155 c h i l d r e n whose l e v e l o f r e a d i n g was a t l e a s t 28 months below t h e i r c h r o n o l o g i c a l age, g i v i n g a r a t e o f 6.6% f o r r e a d i n g b a c k w a r d n e s s . " A l t h o u g h not a l l o f t h o s e i n c l u d e d i n t h e above g r o u p s would n e c e s s a r i l y be d y s l e x i c , i t seems s a f e t o assume t h a t many of them c o u l d be so c l a s s i f i e d . Even t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e o f t h e above e s t i m a t e s would s u g g e s t t h a t d y s l e x i a must a f f e c t a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of s t u d e n t s i n our s c h o o l s who would b e n e f i t f r o m t h e d i a g n o s i s and r e m e d i a t i o n o f t h e i r l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . D y s l e x i a has been an a r e a o f e x t e n s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . "The i m p r e s s i v e magnitude o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e f f o r t i s i n d i c a t e d by 4 the f a c t t h a t a r e c e n t book s u m m a r i z i n g t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e o f knowledge about d y s l e x i a l i s t s more t h a n 900 monographs, p a p e r s and r e p o r t s p u b l i s h e d between 1960 and 1977." ( B e n t o n and P e a r l , 1978; B e n t o n , 1980) Most s c i e n t i s t s i n v e s t i g a t i n g d y s l e x i a have c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between d y s l e x i c s and nor m a l r e a d e r s . Among t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s o f d y s l e x i a , as summarized by Jorm ( 1 9 8 0 ) , a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : d e f i c i t o f b o t h a u d i t o r y - v e r b a l and v i s u a l s h o r t - t e r m s t o r a g e , poor p e r f o r m a n c e on WISC D i g i t Span, poor a u d i t o r y s e q u e n t i a l memory on I.T.P.A., f r e q u e n t t e m p o r a l o r d e r e r r o r s , poor memory o f d i g i t s and l e t t e r s . C o l l e t t e (1980) r e p o r t s a s u r v e y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t o r s : g e n e t i c m a t u r a t i o n l a g , a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t , r e v e r s a l s and r o t a t i o n s , r e v e r s a l s and r o t a t i o n s i n r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g i n s e r t i o n s , o m i s s i o n s or s u b s t i t u t i o n s o f words or l e t t e r s and poor h a n d w r i t i n g . S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m D e s p i t e t h e w i d e s p r e a d i n c i d e n c e and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of d y s l e x i a , no s i n g l e t e s t has been d e v i s e d t o d i a g n o s e t h i s l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . A d y s l e x i c has g e n e r a l l y been d e f i n e d as one who r e a d s a t some p r e d e t e r m i n e d l e v e l below h i s a p p r o p r i a t e age or grade l e v e l and whose r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n i s not t h e r e s u l t of any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : low i n t e l l i g e n c e , v i s u a l or h e a r i n g d e f e c t s , n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s , p r i m a r y e m o t i o n a l p r o b l e m s , e n v i r o n m e n t a l or e d u c a t i o n a l d i s a d v a n t a g e s ( C o l l e t t e , 5 1980; G r i f f i n and W a l t o n , 1981; G r o s s and R o t h e n b u r g , 1980; M i n d e l l , 1980). Thus, th e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of d y s l e x i a has i n v o l v e d t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a l a r g e b a t t e r y o f t e s t s to e x c l u d e t h e above l i s t o f p r o b l e m s as c a u s e s o f a r e a d i n g d i s o r d e r . Such a b a t t e r y would commonly i n c l u d e t e s t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e , v i s u a l - m o t o r p e r c e p t i o n , r e a d i n g a b i l i t y , s p e l l i n g a b i l i t y , a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , v i s i o n and h e a r i n g s c r e e n i n g , and memory, as w e l l as a c o m p l e t e m e d i c a l , d e v e l o p m e n t a l , s o c i a l and e d u c a t i o n a l h i s t o r y ( M u r r a y , 1978). The p u r p o s e o f t h e p r e s e n t work i s a v a l i d i t y s t u d y o f the r e c e n t l y - p u b l i s h e d t e s t o f d y s l e x i a , t h e D y s l e x i a D e t e r m i n a t i o n T e s t ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The a u t h o r s a r e John R. G r i f f i n and Howard N. W a l t o n , b o t h o f whom a r e p r o f e s s o r s a t t h e S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a C o l l e g e o f O p t o m e t r y . A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r s recommend t h a t t h e D.D.T. s h o u l d be p a r t o f a b a t t e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d , t h e y s t a t e , " O t h e r s t u d i e s have shown the D.D.T. a p p r o a c h t o be v a l i d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e n t i t y o f d y s l e x i a and i t s t y p e s when b e i n g compared w i t h o t h e r t e s t i n g methods. The D.D.T. i s a s p e c i a l i z e d r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and s p e l l i n g t e s t . Numbers and l e t t e r s a r e c h e c k e d f o r r e v e r s a l s . S i g h t word r e c o g n i t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d , as i s p h o n e t i c a n a l y s i s i n t h e d e c o d i n g p r o c e s s . S p e l l i n g i s e v a l u a t e d as to r e v i s u a l i z a t i o n of words and p h o n e t i c a b i l i t i e s i n t h e e n c o d i n g p r o c e s s . " ( G r i f f i n and W a l t o n , 1981) The t e s t i s an a t t e m p t t o p r o v i d e a d i r e c t d i a g n o s i s o f d y s l e x i a by a s s e s s i n g r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g t o 6 determine i f a phonetic (sounds) or e i d e t i c ( s i g h t ) d e f i c i t e x i s t s . A s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y to c o r r e c t l y write l e t t e r s and numbers i s a l s o observed. The presence of any of . these d e f i c i t s i s considered an i n d i c a t o r of d y s l e x i a . I t i s the purpose of t h i s study to determine how w e l l the . D. T. can d i f f e r e n t i a t e between d y s l e x i c s and normal readers on the b a s i s of the number and types of e r r o r s made. According to Boder (1971), who o r i g i n a t e d the methods employed by t h i s t e s t , " s p e l l i n g achievement i s c o n s i s t e n t l y at a lower grade l e v e l than reading achievement. D y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n can seldom s p e l l c o r r e c t l y more than 50% of the words i n t h e i r s i g h t vocabulary at t h e i r reading l e v e l and below and u s u a l l y much l e s s . By c o n t r a s t , normal readers, i n the w r i t e r ' s experience, can u s u a l l y s p e l l c o r r e c t l y 80% to 100% of t h e i r s i g h t vocabulary at t h e i r grade l e v e l or below and, commensurate with t h e i r grade l e v e l , w r ite good phonetic e q u i v a l e n t s of words not yet i n t h e i r s i g h t vocabulary." This w i l l be the b a s i s upon which the D.D.T. w i l l be evaluated. W i l l i t show a c l e a r p a t t e r n of is reading and s p e l l i n g e r r o r s among d y s l e x i c s which i s not evident i n normal readers? I f the D.D.T. i s indeed a d i r e c t determiner of d y s l e x i a , and i f i t can f u r t h e r demonstrate d i f f e r i n g types of the d i s o r d e r , i t w i l l be a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r s c r e e n i n g and d i a g n o s i s . I f "the D.D.T. helps e x p l a i n c e r t a i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s that were formerly l i t t l e understood" ( G r i f f i t h and Walton, 1981) i t w i l l become a very popular device, u s e f u l i n schools and c l i n i c s where l e a r n i n g 7 d i s a b i l i t i e s are of concern and i n t e r e s t . Statement of the N u l l Hypothesis There w i l l be no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups as measured by the D y s l e x i a Determination Test. 8 CHAPTER 2 A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e The concepts which form the b a s i s of the D.D.T. o r i g i n a t e d with Dr. Elena Boder, a c l i n i c a l p r o f e s s o r of p e d i a t r i c s i n the U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a School of Medicine, who co n s i d e r s her technique an extension of e a r l i e r d i r e c t approaches to the d i a g n o s i s of d y s l e x i a . I t d i f f e r s from other d i r e c t approaches p r i m a r i l y i n a n a l y z i n g reading and s p e l l i n g as interdependent f u n c t i o n s , thus r e v e a l i n g how the reading and s p e l l i n g of the d y s l e x i c c h i l d are r e l a t e d to each other. Moreover, i t seeks to i d e n t i f y d i a g n o s t i c p a t t e r n s i n the t o t a l reading and s p e l l i n g performances, r a t h e r than i n the e r r o r s alone, thereby c o n s i d e r i n g the d y s l e x i c c h i l d ' s f u n c t i o n a l a s s e t s as w e l l as h i s d e f i c i t s . " (Boder, 1973) Thus, i n Boder's procedure, " i t i s the a n a l y s i s of how the c h i l d reads and s p e l l s , r a t h e r than at what grade l e v e l , that enables the examiner to make a d i a g n o s i s of s p e c i f i c d y s l e x i a and give g u i d e l i n e s f o r remedial t e a c h i n g . " (Boder, 1973) This technique, as developed by Boder, c o n s i s t s of a reading t e s t and a s p e l l i n g t e s t . To begin, the sub j e c t i s d i r e c t e d to read graded l i s t s of i s o l a t e d words. Those read w i t h i n one second are recorded and considered to be i n h i s s i g h t or f l a s h vocabulary. Those words he can read w i t h i n ten seconds, which are considered as untimed, and those he i s unable to read are a l s o recorded s e p a r a t e l y . "The hig h e s t 9 grade l e v e l at which the c h i l d ' s s i g h t vocabulary i n c l u d e s at l e a s t 50% of the word l i s t i s considered h i s reading l e v e l . Comparison of the number of c o r r e c t l y read words i n the ' f l a s h ' and 'untimed' columns i n d i c a t e s whether the c h i l d i s reading through both whole-word g e s t a l t s and phonetic a n a l y s i s or predominantly through one or the o t h e r . " (Boder, 1973) The second stage i s a s p e l l i n g t e s t presented i n two s e c t i o n s — k n o w n words and unknown words. The c h i l d i s f i r s t asked to s p e l l from d i c t a t i o n ten 'known' words at h i s reading l e v e l and w i t h i n two grades below. Secondly, he i s asked to write the same number of 'untimed' words at h i s a c t u a l grade l e v e l , or above; p r e f e r a b l y , words he was unable to decode p h o n e t i c a l l y . "In the l i s t of 'known' words the examiner notes the number of c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d words and whether they i n c l u d e both phonetic and non-phonetic words; i n the l i s t of 'unknown' words the examiner notes how many of the w r i t t e n words, c o r r e c t l y s p e l l e d or not, are good phonetic e q u i v a l e n t s of the d i c t a t e d words. A n a l y s i s of the s p e l l i n g of 'known' words r e v e a l s the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to ' r e v i s u a l i z e ' words i n h i s s i g h t vocabulary. Thus the two s p e l l i n g l i s t s are designed to tap the c e n t r a l a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l processes necessary f o r s p e l l i n g , i n the same way that the ' f l a s h ' and 'untimed' columns of the reading t e s t tap the c e n t r a l v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y processes necessary f o r r e a d i n g . I t i s c l e a r that the s p e l l i n g l i s t of 'unknown' words 10 r e v e a l s t h e c h i l d ' s p h o n e t i c w o r d - a n a l y s i s s k i l l s . I t i s l e s s c e r t a i n t h a t h i s s p e l l i n g l i s t of 'known' words can r e v e a l h i s a b i l i t y t o ' r e v i s u a l i z e ' s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f p h o n e t i c c l u e s — e x c e p t when t h e t a s k word i s s t r i k i n g l y non- p h o n e t i c ( e . g . ' t a l k ' , ' l a u g h ' ) . " ( B o d e r , 1973) From an a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g t a s k s Boder has i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e p a t t e r n s " t h a t d i s c l o s e a c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between how a d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e a d s and how he s p e l l s . T h i s l e d to t h e d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h r e e d i s t i n c t i v e , 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 d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s p a p e r . " ( B o d e r , 1973) In e x p l a i n i n g t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s she s a y s , " I n t h e d y s l e x i c c h i l d , t h e n o r m a l r e a d i n g p r o c e s s i s d i s s o c i a t e d (Bachmann, 1927; H e l l e r , 1963; B o der, 1968 a and b, 1971 a ) . The n o r m a l a u t o m a t i c i n t e r p l a y o f g e s t a l t and a n a l y t i c - s y n t h e t i c p r o c e s s e s i s d i s r u p t e d . The d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e a d s and s p e l l s d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m t h e n o r m a l r e a d e r b o t h q u a l i t a t i v e l y and q u a n t i t a t i v e l y ( O r t o n , 1937; Bauza e t a l , 1962; Ingram, 1963; Boder, 1966, 1971 a; Thompson, 1966; J o h n s o n and M y k l e b u s t , 1967). My own o b s e r v a t i o n s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e b a s i c d e f e c t s o f d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n i n a p p r e h e n d i n g l a n g u a g e symbols can be i n t h e a n a l a y t i c o r t h e g e s t a l t f u n c t i o n , or b o t h , and t h a t t h e s e s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t s a r e r e f l e c t e d i n a b n o r m a l p a t t e r n s o f r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g . One or o t h e r o f t h e p a t t e r n s i s f o u n d c o n s i s t e n t l y i n a l l s e v e r e l y r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s who f u l f i l l t h e s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c d e v e l o p m e n t a l d y s l e x i a n o t e d above. None o f t h e t h r e e p a t t e r n s i s f o u n d 11 among no r m a l r e a d e r s , i . e . , c h i l d r e n who a r e up t o or above grade l e v e l i n r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g . " ( B o d e r , 1973) These t h r e e p a t t e r n s , or s u b t y p e s o f d y s l e x i a , a r e d e s c r i b e d by Boder (1973) a s : Group I - - D y s p h o n e t i c — i n c l u d e s c h i l d r e n who t y p i c a l l y have a l i m i t e d s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y o f whole words t h a t t h e y can r e c o g n i z e and r e a d upon f l a s h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . When t h e y see a word, however common or p h o n e t i c , t h a t i s not y e t i n t h e i r s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y , t h e y a r e t y p i c a l l y u n a b l e t o d e c i p h e r i t . They may g u e s s a word from m i n i m a l c l u e s s u c h as t h e f i r s t and l a s t l e t t e r and t h e l e n g t h o f t h e word. They a l s o t e n d t o r e a d words b e t t e r i n c o n t e x t , t h o u g h t h e y may s u b s t i t u t e a word s i m i l a r i n meaning but d i s s i m i l a r p h o n e t i c a l l y . The d y s p h o n e t i c c h i l d a t t e m p t s t o s p e l l by s i g h t a l o n e and not 'by e a r ' , f o r he has d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a r n i n g what t h e l e t t e r s sound l i k e . He i s a poor s p e l l e r , h i s s p e l l i n g l e v e l b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y below h i s r e a d i n g l e v e l ( i . e . t h e grade l e v e l o f h i s s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y ) b e c a u s e he c a n n o t s p e l l p h o n e t i c a l l y . He s p e l l s c o r r e c t l y , t o d i c t a t i o n , o n l y t h o s e words i n h i s s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y , p h o n e t i c or n o t , t h a t he can r e v i s u a l i z e . Word 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 o f t h i s group o f d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n as t o be v i r t u a l l y p a t h o g n o m i c . The s u b s t i t u t i o n s may be based on t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e v i s u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , s u c h as r e a d i n g ' h o r s e ' f o r 'house', 'monkey' f o r 'money' and ' s t o p ' f o r ' s t e p ' . The most l i k e l y 12 s u b s t i t u t i o n s , however, p r i m a r i l y i n r e a d i n g , but a l s o i n s p e l l i n g , a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d c o n c e p t u a l l y but n o t p h o n e t i c a l l y t o t h e o r i g i n a l word. G e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o s i m p l y as word- s u b s t i t u t i o n ( C r i t c h l e y , 1970), s u c h e r r o r s may be more d e s c r i p t i v e l y termed ' s e m a n t i c - s u b s t i t u t i o n e r r o r s ' ( B o d e r , 1968 a, 1971 a) ( e . g . 'funny' f o r ' l a u g h ' , ' c h i c k e n ' or 'quack' f o r 'duck', 'answer' f o r 'ask', ' s t a i r s ' f o r ' s t e p ' , ' a i r p l a n e ' f o r ' t r a i n ' , ' p e r s o n ' f o r 'human'; ' p l a n e t ' f o r 'moon', 'Los A n g e l e s ' f o r ' c i t y ' ) . " Group I I — D y s e i d e t i c — d e s c r i b e s t h e c h i l d who " r e a d s l a b o r i o u s l y , as i f he i s s e e i n g e a c h word f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . U n l i k e t h e d y s p h o n e t i c c h i l d o f Group I , who has d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g what t h e l e t t e r s sound l i k e , t h e d y s e i d e t i c c h i l d has a poor memory f o r v i s u a l g e s t a l t s and t h e r e f o r e has d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g what t h e l e t t e r s l o o k l i k e . The term ' l e t t e r - b l i n d ' may be a p t l y a p p l i e d t o him. He i s an a n a l y t i c r e a d e r and r e a d s 'by e a r ' , t h r o u g h a p r o c e s s o f p h o n e t i c a n a l y s i s and s y n t h e s i s , s o u n d i n g o ut f a m i l i a r as • w e l l as u n f a m i l i a r c o m b i n a t i o n s o f l e t t e r s , r a t h e r t h a n by whole-word v i s u a l g e s t a l t s . The s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y o f t h e d y s e i d e t i c c h i l d i s a t a much l o w e r l e v e l t h a n t h a t o f t h e d y s p h o n e t i c c h i l d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e d y s p h o n e t i c c h i l d , he can o f t e n r e a d t h e word l i s t by p h o n e t i c a n a l y s i s up t o or near h i s g r a d e l e v e l , m i s s i n g o n l y words t h a t c a n n o t be decoded p h o n e t i c a l l y . F o r example, ' l a u g h ' may n o t be r e a d a t a l l o r r e a d as ' l o g ' or 13 ' l o g e 1 , 'business' may be misread as 'bussyness' and ' t a l k ' as ' t a l c ' . The d y s e i d e t i c c h i l d , l i k e the dysphonetic c h i l d , s p e l l s poorly, though as a r u l e not b i z a r r e l y . He s p e l l s as he r e a d s — ' b y ear'. His m i s s p e l l i n g s are t h e r e f o r e phonetic, and the o r i g i n a l word can u s u a l l y be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d i n h i s s p e l l i n g l i s t , by h i m s e l f and others (e.g. ' l a f ' f o r 'laugh', 'burd' f o r ' b i r d ' , 'tok' f o r ' t a l k ' , 'hows' f o r 'house', ' l i s n ' f o r ' l i s t e n ' , ' b i s n i s ' f o r 'business', 'onkl' f o r 'uncle', 'vakashn' f o r ' v a c a t i o n ' ) . Simple, non-phonetic words i n the d y s e i d e t i c c h i l d ' s l i m i t e d s i g h t vocabulary are u s u a l l y w r i t t e n i n c o r r e c t l y i n h i s known- word l i s t , whereas an u n f a m i l i a r phonetic word not i n h i s s i g h t l i s t may be w r i t t e n c o r r e c t l y i n h i s unknown-word l i s t . He can a l s o . w r i t e good phonetic e q u i v a l e n t s of non-phonetic words that he cannot read; f o r example, reading ' t a l k ' as ' t a l c ' and w r i t i n g i t as 'tok'. The t h i r d group i d e n t i f i e d by Boder i s the mixed d y s p h o n e t i c - d y s e i d e t i c . Group I I I comprises the d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n who are u s u a l l y the most s e v e r e l y e d u c a t i o n a l l y handicapped. They are both dysphonetic and d y s e i d e t i c , though not n e c e s s a r i l y e q u a l l y so. They cannot read e i t h e r on s i g h t or. 'by ear'. L i k e the d y s e i d e t i c c h i l d of Group I I , the Group II I c h i l d has a d e f i c i t i n g e s t a l t f u n c t i o n and has d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a r n i n g what the l e t t e r s of the alphabet look l i k e ; l i k e the dysphonetic c h i l d of Group I, he has a d e f i c i t i n a n a l y t i c 14 f u n c t i o n and has d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a r n i n g what l e t t e r s sound l i k e . I n a d d i t i o n , he o f t e n has marked v i s u o - s p a t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g and t e n d s , more t h a n c h i l d r e n i n Group I do, t o c o n f u s e t h e r e v e r s i b l e l e t t e r s (b - d - p - q , m - w and n - u) and l e t t e r s w i t h s u b t l e g r a p h i c d i f f e r e n c e s ( e . g . h - n and y - y ) . H i s s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n i s d y s p h o n e t i c , l i k e t h a t o f Group I , but h i s m i s - s p e l l i n g s a p p e a r even more b i z a r r e — commonly a s e q u e n c e o f l e t t e r s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e d i c t a t e d word, one i n i t i a l l e t t e r , or a s c r i b b l e . In t h e same s e n s e t h a t he may be s a i d t o be a n o n - r e a d e r , he i s a non- s p e l l e r . The Group I I I c h i l d can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f r o m Group I by t h e l o w e r g r a d e l e v e l o f h i s s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y and f r o m Group I I by h i s l a c k o f word a n a l y s i s - s y n t h e s i s s k i l l s . H i s s e n s e of d e f e a t and p h o b i c w i t h d r a w a l f r o m r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g t a s k s a r e o f t e n s t r i k i n g . " In e x p l a i n i n g how t h i s t e c h n i q u e o f c o m b i n i n g r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g l i s t s can d i r e c t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e d y s l e x i c c h i l d f rom normal r e a d e r s , Boder s t a t e s , " I t i s my o b s e r v a t i o n ( B o d e r , 1971 a ) , r e c e n t l y c o r r o b o r a t e d by W h i t i n g ( 1 9 7 2 ) , t h a t n o r m a l r e a d e r s can w r i t e c o r r e c t l y t o d i c t a t i o n 70 t o 100 per c e n t o f t h e i r s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y a t g r a d e l e v e l and below, and can w r i t e good p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t s o f 80 t o 100 per c e n t of words not y e t i n t h e i r s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y . I n c o n t r a s t , d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n i n a l l t h r e e g r o u p s can seldom s p e l l c o r r e c t l y t o d i c t a t i o n as many as 50 per c e n t o f t h e words i n t h e i r s i g h t 15 v o c a b u l a r y a t t h e i r a c t u a l r e a d i n g l e v e l o r below, and t h e c h i l d r e n i n Group I or I I I can s e l d o m w r i t e a r e c o g n i z a b l e p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t o f an 'unknown word', t h e t y p i c a l r a n g e b e i n g 0 t o 30 per c e n t . Groups I and I I I a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from each o t h e r by t h e d e g r e e o f r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n , t h e a c t u a l r e a d i n g l e v e l f o r Group I I I c h i l d r e n b e i n g much l o w e r a t a l l age l e v e l s — u s u a l l y a t t h e p r i m e r or p r e - p r i m e r l e v e l , even f o r o l d e r c h i l d r e n . The two-column s p e l l i n g p e r f o r m a n c e o f Group I I c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t s a s t r i k i n g c o m b i n a t i o n . As i n Groups I and I I I , f ewer t h a n 50 per c e n t o f t h e words i n t h e i r s i g h t v o c a b u l a r y l i s t a r e s p e l l e d c o r r e c t l y , but t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f good p h o n e t i c e q u i v a l e n t s i n t h e i r unknown-words l i s t i s w i t h i n t h e n ormal r a n g e o f 80 t o 100 per c e n t . T h i s p r e l i m i n a r y a p p r o a c h t o s c o r i n g — t h a t i s , t h e two p e r c e n t a g e s c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e d e g r e e o f r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n and t h e e m p i r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d r a n g e s - has p r o v e d u s e f u l i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g on a more o b j e c t i v e b a s i s t h e t h r e e s u b - t y p e s o f d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n f r o m each o t h e r and f r o m n o r m a l r e a d e r s . I t has a l s o p r o v e d u s e f u l i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e d y s l e x i c c h i l d f r o m poor r e a d e r s w i t h i n a n o r m a l r e a d i n g - s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n , whose r e a d i n g r e t a r d a t i o n can be assumed t o be n o n - s p e c i f i c . " B o d e r ' s c o n c e p t of two t y p e s of d y s l e x i a seems t o be s u p p o r t e d by numerous d i v e r s e s o u r c e s . Q u i r o s (1964) d e s c r i b e s two syndromes of d y s l e x i a w h i c h he d e s c r i b e s as d e f i c i t s i n 16 c e n t r a l a u d i t o r y p r o c e s s i n g and v i s u a l p r o c e s s i n g . S i m i l a r i l y , M y k l e b u s t (1965) c a t e g o r i z e s h i s s u b j e c t s as b e i n g a u d i t o r y d y s l e x i c s or v i s u a l d y s l e x i c s , w h i c h would c o r r e s p o n d to B o d e r ' s d y s p h o n e t i c and d y s e i d e t i c , r e s p e c t i v e l y . K i n s b o u r n e and W a r r i n g t o n ( 1 9 6 6 ) , i n s t u d y i n g a group o f poor r e a d e r s w i t h a marked v e r b a l - p e r f o r m a n c e d i s c r e p a n c y on t h e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n , d e l i n e a t e d two g r o u p s — a l a n g u a g e - r e t a r d a t i o n g r o u p , whom t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t o have a d e v e l o p m e n t a l c e r e b r a l d e f i c i t i n l a n g u a g e , and a Gertsmann group, w i t h a d e f i c i t i n s e q u e n t i a l o r d e r i n g . Bateman (1968) i d e n t i f i e s t h r e e g r o u p s o f d i s a b l e d r e a d e r s based on p r o f i l e s of s c o r e s r e l a t i n g t o v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y memory from t h e I l l i n o i s T e s t o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c A b i l i t y . She d e s c r i b e s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e t h r e e g r o u p s as a good v i s u a l memory w i t h poor a u d i t o r y memory, good a u d i t o r y memory w i t h poor v i s u a l memory, and a t h i r d group w i t h b o t h poor v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y memory. Ingram e t a l ( 1 9 7 0 ) , based upon t y p e s o f r e a d i n g e r r o r s , a l s o d e s c r i b e s t h r e e s u b g r o u p s o f d y s l e x i a - a u d o p h o n i c , v i s u o s p a t i a l , and mixed. S m i t h (1970) i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e g r o u p s of r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s on t h e b a s i s of s u b t e s t p r o f i l e s on t h e WISC. She d e s c r i b e s h e r P a t t e r n 1 as showing s t r e n g t h ' i n s p a t i a l a b i l i t y w i t h d e f i c i t s i n symbol m a n i p u l a t i o n and a u d i t o r y s e q u e n c i n g . Her P a t t e r n 2 shows a v a r i e t y o f d e f i c i t s i n s p a t i a l a b i l i t y . T h ese p a t t e r n s a p p e a r to c o r r e s p o n d t o B o d e r ' s d y s p h o n e t i c and d y s e i d e t i c g r o u p s r e s p e c t i v e l y . 17 S k l a r e t a l (1972) u s i n g a c o m p u t e r i z e d s t u d y o f e l e c t r o - e n c e p h a l o g r a m s has s u b s t a n t i a t e d B o d e r ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e a d i n g - s p e l l i n g p a t t e r n s p r o d u c e d by her p r o c e d u r e a r e d i a g n o s t i c . U s i n g 12 d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n s e l e c t e d a t random from B o d e r ' s sample o f 107 c h i l d r e n (1968) and 13 a g e - s e x matched n o r m a l c o n t r o l s , t h e y were a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e d y s l e x i c group from t h e c o n t r o l s on t h e b a s i s o f s p e c t r a l e s t i m a t e s o f t h e i r E.E.G.'s. M a t t i s e t a l (1975) used an e x t e n s i v e b a t t e r y of n e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s on a sample o f b r a i n - d a m a g e d r e a d e r s , b r a i n - d a m a g e d d y s l e x i c s and n o n - b r a i n - d a m a g e d d y s l e x i c s i n o r d e r t o " i s o l a t e i n d e p e n d e n t s i n g l e d e f i c i t s or c l u s t e r s o f d e f i c i e n c i e s i n h i g h e r c o r t i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . . . s u f f i c i e n t t o l i m i t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f r e a d i n g s k i l l . " "What d i d become a p p a r e n t was t h a t one c o u l d o b s e r v e f r e q u e n t r e p e t i t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s o f d e f i c i t s among t h e d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n . " These p a t t e r n s a r e d e s c r i b e d as d i s o r d e r s i n l a n g u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t , m o t o r - s p e e c h d i f f i c u l t y , or a d i s o r d e r o f v i s u o - s p a t i a l p e r c e p t i o n . Those w i t h a l a n g u a g e d i s o r d e r a p p e a r t o c o r r e s p o n d t o B o d e r ' s d y s e i d e t i c g r o u p , b e i n g d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o b l e n d phonemes i n t h e i r c o r r e c t s e quence w i t h o u t i n t r u s i o n s or o m i s s i o n s ; b u t , w i t h an i n s t a b i l i t y o f v e r b a l l e a r n i n g and r e t r i e v a l , w h i c h i m p a i r s t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a ' l o o k - a n d - s a y ' v o c a b u l a r y . "Those who a r e more s e v e r e l y i m p a i r e d have n o t l e a r n e d t h e names o f t h e l e t t e r s . " The c h i l d r e n d e s c r i b e d by M a t t i s e t a l . as h a v i n g a v i s u o - 18 p e r c e p t i a l d i s o r d e r seem to be l i k e those Boder c a l l s dysphonetic, as t h e i r " p e r c e p t i o n , storage and/or r e t r i e v a l of v i s u a l s t i m u l i are so i n e f f i c i e n t l y processed that l e t t e r s and l e t t e r sequences cannot be r e l i a b l y a s s o c i a t e d with t h e i r sound or l i n g u i s t i c r e f e r e n t s . " These c h i l d r e n cannot i s o l a t e sound nor blend sounds adequately. More r e c e n t l y Aaron (1978) has used Boder's technique to c l a s s i f y d y s l e x i c c h i l d r e n f o r the purpose of h i s r e s e a r c h . Using t h i s procedure, Aaron d i v i d e d h i s grade two, three and four s u b j e c t s i n t o dysphonetic and d y s e i d e t i c groups. A t h i r d group was used as a c o n t r o l . Having administered four t e s t s — memory f o r f a c e s , WISC d i g i t span, r e p r o d u c t i o n of p a i r e d l e t t e r s , and r e p r o d u c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l l e t t e r s , Aaron concluded that the groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The dysphonetic group was comparable to the c o n t r o l group i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y faces while the d y s e i d e t i c group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer. The d y s e i d e t i c group r e c a l l e d more d i g i t sequences than the dysphonetic, who r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer than the c o n t r o l group. The dysphonetic group reproduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a i r e d l e t t e r s as v i s u a l g e s t a l t s than the other two groups. The dysphonetic group reversed more l e t t e r s and shapes than the others under delayed r e c a l l . However, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n r e v e r s a l s among the three groups. Among h i s c o n c l u s i o n s , Aaron s t a t e s , "the present study i n d i c a t e s that Boder's d i a g n o s t i c s c r e e n i n g procedure i s a v a l i d but simple means of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the 19 two c l i n i c a l subtypes of d y s l e x i a . " ^ Boder's d e s i g n a t i o n of two d i s t i n c t types of d y s l e x i a appears to be confirmed by the f i n d i n g s of other r e s e a r c h e r s , as c i t e d above. T h e i r terms, such as 'auditory process d e f i c i t ' , 'poor a u d i t o r y memory' or ' d e f i c i t i n symbol manipulation', appear to be d e s c r i b i n g Boder's dysphonetic Group I, while Group I I , the d y s e i d e t i c , would seem to be the same as those r e f e r r e d to i n the l i t e r a t u r e v a r i o u s l y as ' v i s u a l p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t ' , ' v i s u a l d y s l e x i a ' , 'poor v i s u a l memory', ' s e q u e n t i a l o r d e r i n g d e f i c i t ' , or ' v i s u o s p a t i a l d e f i c i e n c y ' . The work of S k l a r et a l (1972) and Aaron (1978), which used Boder's procedure d i r e c t l y , provide an even stronger support and would seem to confirm the e x i s t e n c e of two d i s t i n c t types of d y s l e x i a which are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and d e f i n e d by the D i a g n o s t i c Screening Procedure. Based upon t h i s foundation of Elena Boder's work, and supported by evidence that the concept of two types of d y s l e x i a upon which her work i s based seems to f i t with and compliment s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s of other r e s e a r c h e r s , G r i f f i n and Walton have adopted, expanded and s t a n d a r d i z e d the D i a g n o s t i c Screening Procedure to produce the D y s l e x i a Determination Test (D.D.T.). The purpose of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether the D.D.T. could i d e n t i f y s u b j e c t s who have been p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d as d y s l e x i c and to f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t e whether t h i s instrument would demonstrate the d i f f e r e n c e s i n reading and s p e l l i n g scores that the authors b e l i e v e to be i n d i c a t i v e of d y s l e x i c types. 20 CHAPTER 3 Methodology P o p u l a t i o n and Sample The p o p u l a t i o n was d e f i n e d as grades four to seven students who f i t the d e f i n i t i o n of d y s l e x i a as diagnosed by e x c l u s i o n : at l e a s t two grade l e v e l s below grade placement i n reading Comprehension scores on the Canadian Tests of B a s i c S k i l l s , with no emotional or p h y s i c a l handicaps which might be the cause of t h e i r low reading achievement; I.Q. scores on the Slosson I n t e l l i g e n c e Test of at l e a s t 85; and whose primary language i s E n g l i s h . The p o p u l a t i o n was r e s t r i c t e d to grades four to seven as primary students have not had the number of years of school experience necessary to demonstrate the reading d e f i c i e n c y as d e f i n e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of d y s l e x i a . The upper l i m i t of grade seven r e s t r i c t s the p o p u l a t i o n to the elementary school where most of the i n t e r v e n t i o n and remediation of d y s l e x i a i s most l i k e l y to occur. The sample was chosen from four schools i n Burnaby, a d i s t r i c t i n the Greater Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n Area. Three of the schools were on the East s i d e , a lower to middle s o c i o - economic area, while one school was i n E a s t - C e n t r a l Burnaby, a middle socio-economic area. These schools were used because they were c o n v e n i e n t l y c l u s t e r e d i n one area of Burnaby and 21 t h e y had been i d e n t i f i e d as s c h o o l s w i t h s p e c i a l programmes f o r s t u d e n t s who would most l i k e l y be e x p e c t e d t o meet t h e c r i t e r i a f o r a d y s l e x i c g r o u p . P e r m i s s i o n f o r t h i s s t u d y was g r a n t e d by t h e Burnaby S c h o o l s R e s e a r c h Committee t h r o u g h th 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 . From t h e f o u r s c h o o l s ' e n r o l l m e n t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1300, 42 s u b j e c t s were i d e n t i f i e d i n J a n u a r y , 1984, on t h e b a s i s o f r e a d i n g s c o r e s f r o m th e C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s , Form V, w h i c h had been a d m i n i s t e r e d d i s t r i c t - w i d e i n November, 1983. Where p o s s i b l e , s u b j e c t s , whose V o c a b u l a r y and C o m p r e h e n s i o n s c o r e s f e l l w i t h i n t h e c r i t e r i a , as e x p l a i n e d below, were c h o s e n . The f i n a l d e c i s i o n f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d y s l e x i c group was based upon t h e C o m p r e h e n s i o n s c o r e b e i n g a t l e a s t two g r a d e l e v e l s below g r a d e p l a c e m e n t and t h e V o c a b u l a r y s c o r e b e i n g below g r a d e p l a c e m e n t . D i s c u s s i o n s were h e l d w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , c o u n s e l l o r s and t e a c h e r s , i n w h i c h c r i t e r i a were e x p l a i n e d t o them and t h e y were a s k e d t o e l i m i n a t e f r o m t h e sample s u b j e c t s who would not f i t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f d y s l e x i a due t o low i n t e l l i g e n c e , h e a r i n g or s i g h t d e f i c i e n c i e s , p h y s i c a l or p r i m a r y e m o t i o n a l p r o b l e m s w h i c h c o u l d a f f e c t r e a d i n g a c h i e v e m e n t , or whose n a t i v e tongue or p r e d o m i n a n t home l a n g u a g e was n o t E n g l i s h . From t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s , 14 s u b j e c t s were e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e sample due t o e m o t i o n a l h a n d i c a p s or b e c a u s e E n g l i s h was not t h e i r p r i m a r y l a n g u a g e . 22 A f t e r r e c e i v i n g p a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n f r o m 15 o f t h e 28 r e m a i n i n g s u b j e c t s (a r e s p o n s e r a t e o f 5 4 % ) , a l l s u b j e c t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d a S l o s s o n I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t (1981 Norms) t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t none o f t h e s u b j e c t s had an I.Q. below 85. As w e l l , t h i s p r o v i d e d a p e r s o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r o b s e r v a t i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t none o f t h e s u b j e c t s s h o u l d have been e x c l u d e d f o r any o f t h e above r e a s o n s , w h i c h had been d i s c u s s e d w i t h s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l . One s u b j e c t was e x c l u d e d b e c a u s e he f a i l e d t o meet th e c r i t e r i a of an I.Q. s c o r e o f a t l e a s t 85, r e s u l t i n g i n a f i n a l sample o f 14 e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . A c o n t r o l g r o up, d e f i n e d as a v e r a g e r e a d e r s w i t h C.T.B.S. V o c a b u l a r y and C o m p r e h e n s i o n s c o r e s n e a r t h e i r g r a d e p l a c e m e n t were c h o s e n from t h e same f o u r Burnaby s c h o o l s . W i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a f o r r e a d i n g s c o r e s , t h e same c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n were a p p l i e d t o t h i s group as had been a p p l i e d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l ( d y s l e x i c ) g r o u p , i n c l u d i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e S . I . T . Wherever p o s s i b l e , s u b j e c t s were matched a c r o s s g r o u p s f o r gender and c l a s s r o o m . The c o n t r o l group c o n s i s t e d o f s i x males and e i g h t f e m a l e s w i t h an a v e r a g e I.Q. o f 100.7. T h e i r V o c a b u l a r y s c o r e s r a n g e d from 0.8 g r a d e s below a c t u a l g r a d e p l a c e m e n t t o 0.6 g r a d e s above p l a c e m e n t , w h i l e t h e i r C o m p r e h e n s i o n s c o r e s r a n g e d f r o m 0.2 g r a d e s below g r a d e p l a c e m e n t t o 0.4 g r a d e s above p l a c e m e n t . The e x p e r i m e n t a l group c o n s i s t e d o f s e v e n males and s e v e n f e m a l e s w i t h an a v e r a g e I.Q. o f 95.8. T h e i r g r a d e s c o r e s , when compared t o g r a d e p l a c e m e n t , r a n g e d , on t h e V o c a b u l a r y 23 t e s t , f r o m 0.8 t o 3.2 g r a d e s below g r a d e p l a c e m e n t , and, on t h e Co m p r e h e n s i o n t e s t , f r o m 1.8 t o 3.6 g r a d e s below p l a c e m e n t . The d i f f e r e n c e between t h e group mean I.Q. s c o r e s o f f i v e p o i n t s r e q u i r e s some s c r u t i n y . The S.I.T. Manual (page 15) q u o t e s c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s f o r t h e age and I.Q. r a n g e o f t h e s e s u b j e c t s as 4 p o i n t s a t t h e 68% c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l , 6 p o i n t s a t the 85% l e v e l , and 8 p o i n t s a t t h e 95% c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l . From t h i s i t can be c o n c l u d e d t h e r e i s o n l y a s m a l l c h a n c e t h a t t h e s e two mean s c o r e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . I t would be e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e d y s l e x i c group w i t h a d e m o n s t r a t e d l a n g u a g e - r e l a t e d d e f i c i t would s c o r e l o w e r t h a n an a v e r a g e r e a d i n g group on t h e S l o s s o n which has a h e a v i l y - w e i g h t e d l a n g u a g e component. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n I.Q. s c o r e s c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between r e a d i n g s c o r e s . D e s c r i p t i o n o f I n s t r u m e n t s 1. The C a n a d i a n T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s (CTBS) i s a group a d m i n i s t e r e d a c h i e v e m e n t t e s t b a t t e r y c o n s i s t i n g of e l e v e n s u b t e s t s w h i c h form f i v e s e c t i o n s , n a m e l y - - V o c a b u l a r y , R e a d i n g C o m p r e h e n s i o n , Language S k i l l s , Work Study S k i l l s and M a t h e m a t i c s S k i l l s . O n l y t h e V o c a b u l a r y and R e a d i n g s e c t i o n s were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t - w i d e a s s e s s m e n t f r o m which s u b j e c t s f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n were c h o s e n . The CTBS i s an a d a p t a t i o n o f t h e Iowa T e s t s of B a s i c S k i l l s w i t h n a t i o n a l C a n a d i a n norms f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1973 24 using more than 23,000 pupils from grades three to eight from 152 schools representing a l l ten provinces and two t e r r i t o r i e s . The sample was a s t r a t i f i e d random sample of Canadian schools in which English was the major language of i n s t r u c t i o n . In 1980 the CTBS was s l i g h t l y modified to r e f l e c t changes in c u r r i c u l a and was renormed using approximately 3200 pupils per grade from a l l across Canada. The 1981 Manual reports internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s that range from .67 to .95. 2. The Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) i s a brief i n d i v i d u a l i n t e l l i g e n c e test made up of items adapted from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The 1981 norms are derived from a population of 1109 New England subjects ranging in age from 27 months to 216 months. This norming included a conversion of the SIT from a r a t i o I.Q. to deviation I.Q. scores using the "equi-percentile method to compress and/or stretch the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores to match the percentile ranks of the anchor t e s t " (Stanford TBinet). As a result of this method of r e c a l i b r a t i o n the Manual states the "new norms for 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 the S-B. norms." E a r l i e r editions of the manual reported concurrent v a l i d i t y between the SIT and S-B. averaging .93 with a range from .89 to .96 for various ages. The 1981 Manual states that "cross validation studies conducted using the newly generated norms for the SIT in r e l a t i o n to the S-B have shown that the 25 correspondence between the two instruments has been re- established and indeed has been improved upon somewhat...." (Armstrong and Jensen, 1981, page 3.) The SIT claims to yield lower scores for below normal subjects and higher scores for normal and gifted subjects than the S-B. It has also been reported to be most r e l i a b l e in the low I.Q. group. 3. The Dyslexia Determination Test (D.D.T.) consists of three parts administered in the following order. Part I, not found in Boder's Procedure, i s a test of Dysnemkinesia, or reversals of l e t t e r s and/or numbers. The subject i s directed a) to write the numbers from 1 - 10, b) to print the alphabet in upper case l e t t e r s and c) to print the alphabet in lower case l e t t e r s . As an optional fourth a c t i v i t y , the subject may be asked to print his name and address. It i s important to note that a l l subjects must print the alphabets as the authors believe printing i s more l i k e l y to produce reversals than i s the f l u i d flow of cursive writing. In scoring this section, the examiner i s to note the hand used, the quality of the pencil grip and the posture of the examinee. The t o t a l number of reversals of both numbers and either upper or lower case l e t t e r s , whichever i s greater, i s recorded as well as the number of omissions. To determine i f a dysnemkinesia exists, the subject's score i s compared with the allowable number of reversals based upon his grade l e v e l , as follows: 26 Grade 1 - 9 reversals Grade 2 - 7 reversals Grade 3 - 5 reversals Grade 4 - 3 reversals Grade 5 - 1 reversal The degree of d e f i c i t i s determined as follows: 1 grade l e v e l below = mild d e f i c i t 2 grade levels below = moderate d e f i c i t 3 grade levels below = marked d e f i c i t Part II (decoding) consists of graded word l i s t s from Kindergarten l e v e l to College l e v e l . The authors state that this range allows the scoring c r i t e r i a to be met by subjects from grades 2 to 12. The examinee i s requested to read these l i s t s , beginning two or three grades below his grade placement. These l i s t s are very similar to Boder's l i s t s but some modifications have been made. According to the Examiner's Manual, "graded word l i s t s were obtained from the Los Angeles City School D i s t r i c t and the Azusa ( C a l i f o r n i a ) Unified School D i s t r i c t . Some of the words in the San Diego Quick Assessment Test are u t i l i z e d . Words were also obtained form various primers and reader glossaries that were surveyed. Similarly, commonly-used Dolch nouns are incorporated into the 27 D.D.T." The subject reads each l i s t of ten words while the examiner records those read correctly, within two seconds, from the E (eidetic) column of the protocol. The subject i s then given ten seconds to read each of those words that was not correctly read the f i r s t time. Those now read correctly are noted in the P (phonetic) column of the protocol. Those not read correctly during either t r i a l are marked in the U (unknown) column. This process i s continued with succeeding l i s t s u n t i l the subject reads less than 50% of a l i s t and has at least ten words recorded in the U column. The examinee's reading l e v e l i s the highest l i s t in which at least 50% (5) of the words were read within the two second time l i m i t (those recorded in the E column). The number of E column words at this l e v e l i s recorded, as well as the t o t a l number of words in the E and P columns, respectively. The examiner must also make a judgment at this point as to whether more words were read phonetically (P column) or were part of the subjects sight vocabulary (E column). In making th i s decision the authors suggest most of the evidence should come from the l i s t s approaching the examinee's reading l e v e l and may be assisted by looking at the words read to consider i f most were phonetic or non-phonetic. Part III (encoding) i s comprised of two sp e l l i n g tests using words from the graded reading l i s t s . The f i r s t test i s begun at the subject's reading l e v e l , and, working backward, 28 ten odd-numbered words from the E columns are dictated. The number spelled correctly i s recorded. The second test i s also begun at the subject's reading l e v e l , but this time the examiner works forward from this l e v e l , dictating ten words (odd and/or even) taken from the U column. Before this test, the subject has been instructed to sp e l l the words phonetically (e.g. ' l a f ' for 'laugh'). The number of words the examiner deems to be spelled in a recognizable phonetic mode i s recorded. For both sp e l l i n g tests the c r i t e r i a for success or d e f i c i t are: 100% correct - above normal performance 80% correct - normal performance 60% correct - borderline performance 40% correct - mild d e f i c i t 20% correct - moderate d e f i c i t 0% correct - marked d e f i c i t Decoding and encoding performance are now analyzed. Both should indicate a similar pattern of strength or weakness in either phonics (phonesia) or sight (eidesia) a b i l i t y . If the decoding and encoding patterns do not coincide, Form B of the D.D.T. should be administered. Hopefully, this second administration w i l l eliminate any doubt as to the the type of d e f i c i t displayed by the examinee. If a s i g n i f i c a n t discrepancy s t i l l exists between encoding and decoding patterns 29 the severity of the d e f i c i t would be adjusted by "averaging" the results of both tests. For example, a moderate d e f i c i t in encoding with good decoding s k i l l s would be diagnosed as a mild encoding d e f i c i t . As a result of administering and scoring the D.D.T. as described above, three basic types of dyslexia may be determined. Dysnemkinesia i s diagnosed i f the number of reversals on the printing test exceeds the published c r i t e r i a . Dysphonesia i s indicated when the subject reads and s p e l l s by sight, demonstrating an i n a b i l i t y to decode and encode phonetically. Dyseidesia i s the diagnosis i f the examinee i s unable to demonstrate a reasonable sight vocabulary in the decoding and encoding tests while phonetic a b i l i t y i s evident. These c r i t e r i a for diagnosing dyslexia appear to be somewhat subjective, in particular where the examiner i s required to make a judgment of the r e l a t i v e phonetic or e i d e t i c reading a b i l i t y of the examinee. Anyone using the D.D.T. should consider Boder's description of the differences between groups she has observed in her research. She has stated (Boder, 1971) that, i n normal readers, s p e l l i n g and reading levels are very nearly the same, while the dyslexic's s p e l l i n g i s invariably below his reading l e v e l , both groups usually sp e l l i n g less than 50 per cent of the words in their sight vocabulary c o r r e c t l y . In addition, the dysphonetic c h i l d seldom can produce a recognizable phonetic equivalent for more than 30 per cent of his unknown words, while the dyseidetic may 30 s p e l l 80 to 100 per cent of his unknown words phonetically "correct". Administration and Scoring A l l subjects were administered the D.D.T. by trained examiners following the prescribed procedures as explained in the Examiner's Instruction Manual and the tape "A Mini Seminar" provided with the D.D.T. k i t . Scoring was done by the examiners according to the manual instructions and were double- checked by the investigator for mechanical errors and, i n the case of phonetic s p e l l i n g , for agreement on good phonetic equivalents. The examiners were not aware of the exact purpose of their testing nor of the d i v i s i o n of the subjects into two groups. Research Design 1. Research Hypothesis a. The basic hypothesis of this paper was that the Dyslexia Determination Test should be able to id e n t i f y the two d i s t i n c t groups of subjects who were determined to be dif f e r e n t on the basis of Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s reading Comprehension subtest scores. b. As the authors of the test have defined di f f e r e n t types of dyslexia which are purported to be indicated by different patterns of reading and spel l i n g scores on the 31 D.D.T., the test should have demonstrated these variations. 2. Method of Analysis a. Scores on . the D.D.T. were analyzed using a discriminant analysis procedure to determine i f the two groups of readers d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . b. Data produced by the D.D.T. were scored and analyzed according to the c r i t e r i a outlined in the test manual to determine i f di f f e r e n t types of dyslexia were apparent. 3. Method of Presentation of the Results a. Scores and diagnosis were presented in Tables #1-6. b. Scores were i l l u s t r a t e d by Graphs #1-5. c. Scores and diagnosis were described and discussed in the text of Chapter Four. 32 CHAPTER 4 Results The results of the D.D.T. were analyzed i n three s t e p s — Reading scores, Spelling scores, and a combined p a t t e r n — t o arrive at a f i n a l diagnosis as to the type of dyslexia present. The analysis of Reading scores (Table 1) proved d i f f i c u l t , as c r i t e r i a for determining the decoding mode of examinees are not cle a r l y defined. The Manual states, "A value judgment must be made for the decoding mode of the examinee. Is i t r e l a t i v e l y more phonetic or eidetic? The decoding mode for a l l grade leve l s being used i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y judged by comparing the correct responses for flash-known ("E") words with untimed- known ("P") words. In this 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 e i d e t i c . This judgment i s based on the fact that the examinee seemed to be able to "pick-up" phonetic words f a i r l y well a_t grade levels approaching his grade placement [investigator's emphasis]. That i s , at third and fourth grade l e v e l s , the examinee did much better in the P columns than in the E columns. Also note that even-numbered words (phonetic) mainly comprise the P columns." ( G r i f f i n and Walton, 1981, p.9) As might be expected, the actual scores of the examinees (Table 2) did not f a l l as neatly into categories as did the 33 Table 1 Reading Diagnosis SUBJECT GRADE READING DIAGNOSIS NUMBER PLACEMENT LEVEL INDICATED Control Group 1 7.3 12 NONE 2 7.3 12 NONE 3 7.3 Col NONE 4 7.3 Col NONE 5 6.3 12 NONE 6 6.3 12 NONE 7 6.3 12 NONE 8 6.3 12 NONE 9 6.3 12 NONE 10 5.3 12 NONE 11 5.3 12 NONE 12 5.3 12 NONE 13 4.3 6 NONE 14 4.3 12 NONE Experimental Group 15 7.3 12 NONE 16 7.3 12 NONE 17 6.3 3* EQUAL 18 6.3 12 NONE 19 6.3 12 NONE 20 6.3 6+ SLIGHT DISEIDETIC 21 6.3 4* SLIGHT DISEIDETIC 22 6.3 12 NONE 23 5.3 12 NONE 24 5.3 4+ EQUAL 25 5.3 6 NONE 26 5.3 3* EQUAL 27 5.3 5+ SLIGHT DISEIDETIC 28 4.3 3+ SLIGHT DISEIDETIC * denotes subjects who scored two or more grade levels below placement + denotes subjects who scored at, or one grade l e v e l below, placement 34 Table 2 Subjects' Raw Scores on D.D.T. SUBJECT EIDETIC PHONETIC UNKNOWN EIDETIC PHONETIC NUMBER READING READING WORDS SPELLING SPELLING Control Group 1 097 004 009 005 009 2 100 001 009 006 009 3 099 006 005 009 010 4 102 002 006 005 009 5 091 002 007 004 003 6 097 005 008 009 010 7 095 009 006 007 008 8 101 004 005 006 007 9 100 002 008 006 009 10 085 006 009 005 008 11 095 005 010 006 005 12 095 005 010 004 010 13 071 012 007 003 007 14 085 007 018 003 005 Experimental Group 15 089 009 002 003 007 16 098 004 008 008 010 17 057 005 008 005 003 18 087 008 015 003 010 19 093 007 Oil 007 010 20 075 006 009 006 007 21 058 006 006 003 005 22 090 009 Oil 004 009 23 080 004 016 009 005 24 057 004 009 006 005 25 076 013 ' Oil 002 008 26 051 009 010 005 006 27 060 006 014 002 002 28 046 012 012 006 009 Control Group Mean 93.79 5.00 8.36 5.57 7.79 S.D. 8.46 2.99 3.25 1.87 2.15 Experimental Group Mean 72.64 7.29 10.14 4.93 6.86 S.D. 17.42 2.87 3.66 2.20 2.63 35 example i n the Manual. The control group could not be analyzed as described i n the Manual, as none of them had a reading l e v e l below their grade placement. Two subjects scored at the highest l e v e l (College) while eleven scored at the second highest l e v e l (Grade 12). Only one subject scored near his grade placement, s t i l l exceeding this by two grades. Of the experimental group, three subjects met the c r i t e r i a of scoring two or more grades below placement, two scoring two grades below and one three grades below placement. Two subjects scored one grade below placement and two scored at grade placement. Of the remaining seven, six of the subjects t-> scored at the Grade 12 l e v e l (exceeding placement by f i v e , six or seven years) and one scored at the Grade 6 l e v e l (exceeding placement by one year). As a r e s u l t , only seven subjects' scores could be analyzed according to the Manual's instr u c t i o n s . For the others, an attempt was made to apply the scoring c r i t e r i a at lev e l s approaching their reading l e v e l . However, this proved to be inconclusive, due to the overwhelming number of words read as flash-known and the small number of words available for phonetic attack and 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 and Phonetic words read, number of even (phonetic) and odd (non- phonetic) words read and the number of even and odd words which were Unknown, to ascertain whether more phonetic or non-phonetic 36 words were read and whether more phonetic or non-phonetic words were not read. This was done to determine i f the decoding mode was " r e l a t i v e l y more phonetic", " r e l a t i v e l y more e i d e t i c " or " r e l a t i v e l y equal." Three of the subjects had no apparent pattern ("relatively equal") while four subjects tended to be s l i g h t l y more phonetic. None of these four had anything which would be considered a strong pattern largely because the Test does not appear to produce enough differences for a judgment to be made with any degree of confidence. Spelling scores were analyzed using the c r i t e r i a provided on pages 12 and 14 of the Manual, as cited here on page 29. As Table 3 shows, these c r i t e r i a are less ambiguous than those given for the Reading section and produced a clearer, more exact diagnosis. By using the Manual's c r i t e r i a of 50% correct to discriminate between dyslexic and normal s p e l l e r s , one can see from Table 4 that eight control subjects would be c l a s s i f i e d as dyslexic with f i v e being c l a s s i f i e d dyseidetic, one dysphonetic, and two f a l l i n g into both categories. Of the experimental subjects, ten were c l a s s i f i e d as dyslexic, with five being dyseidetic, two dysphonetic and three in both categories. Table 5 shows a summary of those subjects who scored at or below grade l e v e l on the Reading test with their reading and spell i n g patterns and a f i n a l composite diagnosis of dyslexia type. It should be noted that only one subject had anything 37 Table 3 Spelling Diagnosis SUBJECT SCORE DYSEIDESIA SCORE DYSPHONESIA NUMBER Control Group 1 5 MILD 9 ABOVE NORMAL 2 6 BORDERLINE 9 ABOVE NORMAL 3 9 ABOVE NORMAL 10 ABOVE NORMAL 4 5 MILD 9 ABOVE NORMAL 5 4 MILD 3 MODERATE 6 9 ABOVE NORMAL 10 ABOVE NORMAL 7 7 BORDERLINE 8 NORMAL 8 6 BORDERLINE 7 BORDERLINE 9 6 BORDERLINE 9 ABOVE NORMAL 10 5 MILD 8 NORMAL 11 6 BORDERLINE 5 MILD 12 4 MILD 10 ABOVE NORMAL 13 3 MODERATE 7 BORDERLINE 14 3 MODERATE 5 MILD Experimental Group 15 3 MODERATE 7 BORDERLINE 16 8 NORMAL 10 ABOVE NORMAL 17 5 MILD 3 MODERATE 18 3 MODERATE 10 ABOVE NORMAL 19 7 BORDERLINE 10 ABOVE NORMAL 20 6 BORDERLINE 7 BORDERLINE 21 3 MODERATE 5 MILD 22 4 MILD 9 ABOVE NORMAL 23 9 ABOVE NORMAL 5 MILD 24 6 BORDERLINE 5 MILD 25 2 MODERATE 8 NORMAL 26 5 MILD 6 BORDERLINE 27 2 MODERATE 2 MODERATE 28 6 BORDERLINE 9 ABOVE NORMAL 38 Table 4 Summary of Spelling Diagnosis Control Group Diagnosis E i d e t i c Phonetic Above Normal 2 7 Normal 0 2 Borderline Normal 5 2 Mild - 5 2 Moderate 2 1 Marked 0 0 Experimental Group Diagnosis E i d e t i c Phonetic Above Normal 1 5 Normal 1 1 Borderline Normal 4 3 Mild 3 3 Moderate 5 2 Marked 0 0 39 Table 5 Summary and Diagnosis with Reading and Spelling SUBJECT READING SPELLING NUMBER DYSEIDESIA DYSPHONESIA 17 no pattern Mild Moderate* 20 Slight Dyseidesia* Borderline Borderline 21 + Slight Dyseidesia Mild Moderate 24 no pattern Borderline Mild* 26 no pattern Mild* Borderline 27 Slight Dyseidesia* Moderate Moderate 28 Slight Dyseidesia* Borderline Above Normal * denotes f i n a l diagnosis of dyslexic type + denotes "Mixed" diagnosis 40 approaching a convincing pattern through the reading and spe l l i n g mode, with a s l i g h t dyseidetic reading pattern and a borderline dyseidetic s p e l l i n g score (which, by i t s e l f , would not have been used to indicate dyslexia) . From the scores of the other dyslexic subjects, we must conclude they a l l have a mixed pattern or that a diagnosis, i f i t i s to be made, must be based on rather weak evidence, from the Reading or Spelling sector alone. The f i v e subtest scores produced by the D.D.T.— Eid e t i c reading, Phonetic reading, Unknown words-reading, Known words— spe l l i n g (conventional orthography) and Unknown words—spelling (phonetic equivalents) were also analyzed using a multiple discriminant anaylsis procedure (DISCRIMINANT) from the U.B.C. S . P . S . S . — S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences, Version 9.00 (under MTS). In this procedure, a discriminant function which maximizes the difference between groups, i s developed. For t h i s function, weights are determined for each variable by which they are multiplied. A composite score (discriminant score) i s determined by a lin e a r combination of the weighted variables, which w i l l provide the maximum separation of groups, score for each subject which w i l l provide the maximum separation of groups. The standardized discriminant weights generated for this sample were: X/ (Eidetic reading) 1.05 X^ (Phonetic reading) Xj (Unknown words) -0.11 -0.23 41 (Traditional spelling) -0.07 Xt (Phonetic spelling) -0.31 These c o e f f i c i e n t s were used in a discriminant function of: 1.05X, + O.IIX2 + O.23X3 + 0-07X^ + 0.31X5- = X D to produce a composite, or discriminant score for each subject. An examination of the r e l a t i v e magnitude of the standardized weights reveals that E i d e t i c reading (Xj) i s by far the greatest component of the composite score. The weight used with Xj i s greater than the t o t a l of the other four weights ranging from 3.5 to 15 times as great as any of the other weights. As can be seen from Table 2, the Ei d e t i c reading raw score i s also much larger than the other scores, ranging from 46 to 102, while no other raw score exceeds 18. The means and standard deviations for X/ of M = 93.79 and S.D. = 8.46 (Control) and M = 72.64 and S.D. = 17.42 (Experimental) c l e a r l y demonstrate the greatest difference between groups when compared with each other and with the means and standard deviations of the other four scores. Thus, the Eid e t i c reading score, that i s , the number of words read by sight, i s cl e a r l y and overwhelmingly the greatest discriminator between the experimental and control groups. The above c o e f f i c i e n t s were also applied to the means of each function of the Control Group and the Experimental Group, producing a mean discriminant score of 92.99 for the Control Group and 70.54 for the Experimental Group, which i s a 42 difference in means of 22.45. By applying the discriminant weights to the mean discriminant function scores i t i s cl e a r l y confirmed that the two groups are d i s t i n c t . By using the above discriminant function, the 28 subjects were divided into two groups. Two (14%) of the control group (S #13 and 14) (non-dyslexic) were placed i n the experimental group while four (29%) of the experimental group (S #15, 16, 19 and 22) (dyslexic) were placed in the control group. Twenty- two (79%) of the t o t a l sample were correctly placed in their respective groups. In comparing th i s h i t rate with a chance d i v i s i o n of the subjects into two groups, a chi-squared value of 13.22 was produced that i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.02 l e v e l . Thus, the d i v i s i o n of these subjects into two d i s t i n c t groups by the discriminant analysis treatment of the raw D.D.T. scores has only a 2% li k e l i h o o d of occuring by chance and the n u l l hypothesis i s rejected. It should be noted that the D.D.T. i s "under diagnosing" by placing only 43% of the t o t a l sample in the dyslexic group which was 50% of sample. Part One of the D.D.T., testing for dysnemkinesia, produced very few reversals. None of the Control Group exhibited any reversals. In the Experimental Group two students had reversals. A Grade Six student (#22) had one reversal ("Z") while a Grade Five student (#26) had two ("B" and " J " ) . As well, two subjects made errors in printing that could not be c l a s s i f i e d as reversals. One Grade Six student (#18) wrote "0." for "U" in both upper and lower case while a 43 Grade Five student (#23) misplaced "0" between "L" and "M" but also placed "0" in the correct position, both in upper and lower case l e t t e r s . This section of the D.D.T. produced no s i g n i f i c a n t results for this sample and did not contribute to a diagnosis of dyslexia for any of the subjects. 44 CHAPTER 5 Discussion In order to determine whether or not the D.D.T. can be used for a v a l i d and direct diagnosis of dyslexia, two groups of readers, one average and one at least two reading grades below grade placement on a group achievement test, were administered the D.D.T. Using a discriminant analysis procedure the groups were shown to be diff e r e n t with some misplacement of subjects from both groups. Using the Manual's prescribed methods of scoring, only three of the subjects were diagnosed as dyslexic. The determination of their sub-type of dyslexia proved to be d i f f i c u l t and inconclusive. Using a discriminant analysis procedure, i t i s possible to determine the difference between a group of normal readers and a group of dyslexic readers. However, the discriminant function makes i t clear that the two groups are being separated almost t o t a l l y by the number of flash-known words, leading to the conclusion that the D.D.T. i s simply acting as a test of the subjects' sight reading vocabulary. This i s further evidenced by the fact that the two subjects in the Control group who were misplaced had the lowest E scores (sight words read within two seconds) in their group, while the four subjects in the Experimental (dyslexic) group who were misplaced had the highest E scores of the dyslexic group. Those from the Control group misplaced because of their lower E 45 scores were the Grade four subjects who should normally be expected to have lower scores than those subjects from higher grade l e v e l s . The four from the Experimental group misplaced because of their higher E scores were the Grade seven subjects and two of the Grade six subjects who, because of their higher grade placement, could be expected to produce the higher sight vocabulary scores. Thus, although the D.D.T. appears to have reasonably good discriminant powers, this discrimination i s almost t o t a l l y a function of sight vocabulary. This type of information could be generated by any graded word l i s t and i s not diagnostic in the sense of determining dyslexic patterns. Using the guidelines outlined in the Manual, and by the d e f i n i t i o n of dyslexia as quoted at the beginning of this study, only three subjects, a l l from the Experimental group, would be c l a s s i f i e d as dyslexic. Two of the subjects (#17 and #26) had no discernible reading pattern, while the other (#21) showed a s l i g h t d i s e i d e t i c tendency. In analyzing s p e l l i n g patterns using the guidelines as on page 29, a l l three were found to have a Mild dyseidesia. Two of the subjects (#17 and #21) also had a Moderate disphonesia while the t h i r d (#26) was a Borderline dysphonetic. As a result of these scores, subject #17 could be c l a s s i f i e d as a Moderate dysphonetic, based upon his having no s p e c i f i c reading pattern and a phonetic s p e l l i n g score lower than his e i d e t i c score.' Subject #21 was determined to be a Mixed dyslexic because his reading pattern was 46 d i s e i d e t i c , while his spel l i n g was more disphonetic than d i s e i d e t i c . Subject #26 would be c l a s s i f i e d a Mild d i s e i d e t i c because his reading showed no pattern while his spel l i n g was Mildly d i s e i d e t i c . From this analysis of the weakest readers in the sample and the explanations of how a diagnosis would be reached for each of them i t can be seen that the results are inconclusive, being derived from scant indicators of reading or spe l l i n g d i f f i c u l t y . None of the subjects exhibited a clear reading and spel l i n g pattern. The scarcity of evidence supporting any of these diagnoses must place them in some question in the investigator's mind. To understand why the diagnoses arrived at by the D.D.T. are questionable, i t i s helpful to look at the construction of the Test and some of the problems experienced by the examiners. As was expected, and predicted by G r i f f i n and Walton, the normal readers scored very high on the reading portion of the D.D.T. Most of their reading l e v e l s , as determined by the Test, far exceeded their grade placement. However, more than 50% (8) of them f a i l e d the sp e l l i n g test according to the c r i t e r i a shown on page 29. Seven subjects scored below 50% on the ei d e t i c s p e l l i n g test, with two of them also f a i l i n g the phonetic test while one subject scored less than 50% on the phonetic test while passing the ei d e t i c test. These results also seem to be at odds with Boder's findings, as quoted e a r l i e r , "that normal readers can write correctly to dic t a t i o n 70 to 100 per cent of their sight vocabulary at grade l e v e l and 47 below, and can write good phonetic equivalents of 80 to 100 per cent of words not yet i n their sight vocabulary." (Boder, 1971) This apparent anomaly may be explained by the fact that a l l of the Control group exceeded their grade l e v e l in the reading tests and thus were expected to s p e l l well beyond their grade l e v e l and could probably have been expected to do much better were they s p e l l i n g at grade l e v e l . However, i t should be noted that the Experimental group did only s l i g h t l y worse on the sp e l l i n g tests, with nine subjects scoring less than 50% on one or both tests. Seven f a i l e d the eidet i c s p e l l i n g test with three of them also f a i l i n g the phonetic test, while two subjects scored less than 50% on -the phonetic test only. Far more subjects from both groups f a i l e d the ei d e t i c test than the phonetic test despite the fact that phonetiic s p e l l i n g i s neither a s k i l l taught in school nor i s i t considered by teachers to be a p a r t i c u l a r l y desirable s k i l l . Twelve of the 14 Control group and 10 of the 14 Experimental group had higher phonetic scores than e i d e t i c scores. This i s a bias b u i l t into the test because no lati t u d e can be allowed in the scoring of the e i d e t i c s p e l l i n g l i s t , while a wide range of correct responses i s possible when sp e l l i n g phonetically. In this regard, the Manual lacks c l a r i t y . There are few samples given to help the examiner to decide what i s a good phonetic equivalent. The only information given i s : "The examinee i s judged as to the correctness of sp e l l i n g by how the phonetic 48 e q u i v a l e n t of the word i s w r i t t e n . For example, " d e l i t " i s c o r r e c t f o r the word d e l i g h t , and " s o r d " f o r the word soared." No g u i d e l i n e s are given as to how s t r i c t l y the a p p l i c a t i o n of phonetic r u l e s should be expected nor do the authors mention or suggest that the judgment of a good phonetic e q u i v a l e n t should vary with the age or reading grade l e v e l of the s u b j e c t . I t would seem to t h i s w r i t e r that 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 of the phonetic r u l e s should be expected of s u b j e c t s as t h e i r grade or reading l e v e l i n c r e a s e s . The Manual needs to be f a r more s p e c i f i c i n e x p l a i n i n g and g i v i n g examples of good phonetic e q u i v a l e n t s while a l s o addressing the i s s u e of i n c r e a s i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r higher l e v e l s u b j e c t s . As p r e v i o u s l y noted, i t was found d i f f i c u l t to make a s u b j e c t i v e d e c i s i o n on the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h or weakness of a s u b j e c t ' s reading l e v e l s when a sub j e c t was approaching h i s reading l e v e l , or c e i l i n g , the s i g h t words read c o r r e c t l y tended to overwhelm the other s c o r e s . Subjects s t i l l tended to get more words c o r r e c t i n the E i d e t i c column than the Phonetic column u n t i l a l e v e l was reached where E and P scores tended to come together. At these l e v e l s , where a d i a g n o s i s was to be made, the d i f f e r e n c e between the number of s i g h t and phonetic words read was never very great, u s u a l l y not more than one or two words s e p a r a t i n g the s c o r e s . T h i s made a d i a g n o s i s circumspect and d i f f i c u l t as i t had to be based upon a small number of words and a small d i f f e r e n c e between modes of re a d i n g . 49 It i s the investigator's opinion that a diagnosis might be assisted i f a l l reading errors were recorded on the protocol for l a t e r analysis. In this way, an examiner could not only see the types of words read or not read but could also see the types of errors made by the subject. The predominant type of error could form a component of the decision on the type of dyslexia along with the presently-used number and type of words most easily read. The v a l i d i t y of a diagnosis might be further enhanced i f the subject read more graded l i s t s . The Manual instructs the examiner to administer the reading test up to one grade l e v e l beyond the examinee's reading l e v e l (50% of sight words correct.) In order to get a better feeling for the examinee's strongest mode of reading i t would seem to be be n e f i c i a l to administer more of the graded word l i s t s in order to further probe the reader's preferred method of word attack near his reading l i m i t s . To further expand the information from which a diagnosis i s to be made i t would be helpful i f a supplementary word l i s t were supplied for each grade l e v e l so that the examiner, after determining a subject's reading l e v e l , could further probe the subject's e i d e t i c and phonetic a b i l i t y at his reading l e v e l with a more comprehensive word l i s t . The above suggestions would a l l have the • effect of enlarging the amount of information at the examiner's disposal from which to make a judgment of the reader's preferred method 50 of word attack. With increased information a pattern may be more clear, making a diagnosis easier and more v a l i d . The basis of the D.D.T., Boder's concept of the e i d e t i c or phonetic reader/speller, seems to be supported by many researchers as previously quoted. The knowledge of a student's strength and weakness, or his preferred mode of reading and s p e l l i n g , would be very useful to a teacher attempting to remediate the weak reader. This test helps to provide this information and would be a valuable part of a larger battery of tests used to diagnose a subject's learning problems. However, due to the inconclusive results of this study, including the fact that the sight reading score was the main discriminant factor between groups and that few of the Experimental group actually were weak enough readers on the,D.D.T. to be diagnosed dyslexic, the D.D.T. cannot be recommended as an instrument for i a direct diagnosis of dyslexia. It i s the writer's opinion that most c l i n i c i a n s would s t i l l want to base such a diagnosis on a f u l l battery of tests, as described in Chapter One. In summary, the concept of testing and analyzing reading and s p e l l i n g in two modes should provide valuable information that would be helpful in developing a plan for remediation. The graded word l i s t s , with their careful combination of e i d e t i c and phonetic words, could also be useful as a quick assessment of a pupil's word recognition l e v e l and his preferred mode of word attack. The Test could be improved to make the administration, scoring and analysis more accurate. 51 The Manual needs to include more s p e c i f i c i nstruction and guidelines on scoring the phonetic s p e l l i n g test so that an examiner i s able to determine more quickly and accurately whether a particular word i s a good phonetic equivalent. It would also be helpful i f supplementary word l i s t s were provided so that a larger sample of the subject's reading and spelling could be obtained at his reading l e v e l . It would further be helpful to note reading errors on the protocol. Thus, a diagnosis would be based upon a larger sample of the subject's reading and s p e l l i n g at the c r i t i c a l l e v e l near his c e i l i n g . A diagnosis of dyslexia type would be made easier with more guidelines as to the patterns of reading and s p e l l i n g scores as reported by Boder and cited in Chapter Two. A knowledge of these patterns would be more valuable in making a diagnosis than are the raw numbers on which a diagnosis must now be made according to the subjective guidelines of the Manual. Suggestions for Further Research This investigation produced some indications that the D.D.T. and i t s authors' concept of dyslexia types may be v a l i d but the results lack conclusive proof that the Test produces enough data to make a direct diagnosis of dyslexia and i t s subtypes. The present research should be replicated using a larger and more s p e c i f i c sample. The sample for this investigation was chosen on the basis of their low reading 52 comprehension scores as measured by the C.T.B.S. As the results on the D.D.T. show, most of the subjects read single words at a much higher l e v e l than their comprehension scores, indicating most of them were not truly "word-blind." Many other factors not assessed by the D.D.T. may have contributed to their low comprehension l e v e l s . If a sample of students were chosen on the basis of below grade placement scores on a graded word l i s t test similar to that used by the D.D.T. i t would be more l i k e l y to produce more divergent patterns of reading and s p e l l i n g on the D.D.T. Such a sample would l i k e l y make the results of the D.D.T. clearer than the present sample did and would provide the investigator with more useful data from which to ascertain whether the patterns of dyslexia, which the Test i s primarily designed to indicate, do exi s t . Dr. Boder has now produced her own test (Boder & J a r r i c o , 1982) with the same intent as the D.D.T Research should be conducted to compare the results of the Boder with the D.D.T. using the same sample. Such a comparison should include raw scores, reading and s p e l l i n g l e v e l s , patterns and diagnoses to determine whether they agree or produce c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. As a result of the inconclusive nature of the present investigation, a major concern i n making a comparison should be whether either test produces a clearer pattern of a b i l i t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s than was reported by this researcher. As Boder's Manual appears to be much more comprehensive than the D.D.T.'s, 53 giving far more information on how to compare reading and spe l l i n g results to f a c i l i t a t e a diagnosis, i t would be valuable to attempt to apply her guidelines to the scoring and interpretation of the D.D.T. to ascertain whether they would improve the D.D.T.'s a b i l i t y to produce a clear diagnosis. The paper by Hooper and Hynd (1983) suggests an important area for further research. Their investigation tests the basic premise of the D.D.T. that i d e n t i f i a b l e subtypes exist among dyslexics. Although they use Boder's test, further research could be conducted equally well with the D.D.T. Their thesis i s that i f d i s t i n c t subtypes exist, subjects with di f f e r e n t strengths should produce d i s t i n c t and predictable p r o f i l e s on other tests. Hooper and Hynd suggest that a d i s e i d e t i c reader with a strength in phonetic reading should show a p a r a l l e l strength i n sequential processing tasks while the disphonetic reader should show greater a b i l i t y in simultaneous processing tasks. Using the Kaufman Battery to test the correlation between Boder's dyslexic types and simultaneous and sequential processing factors, they did not find evidence to support their thesis. As this type of investigation challenges the basis upon which the D.D.T. was developed, i t merits more research to test the fundamental v a l i d i t y of any test which attempts to delineate a d i f f e r e n t i a l diagnosis of dyslexia. 54 REFERENCES Aaron, P.G. Dyslexia, an imbalance in cerebral information- processing strategies. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1978, 47, 699-706. Armstrong, R.J, and Jensen, J.A. Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) for Children and Adults, 1981 norms tables application and development. East Aurora, New York: Slosson Educational Publications Inc., 1981. Bannatyne, A. Diagnosis: A note on recategorization of WISC scaled scores. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1977, _7, 272-273. Benton, A.L. Dyslexia: Evolution of a concept. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1980, _3_P_, 10-26. Boder, E. A neuropediatric approach to school behavioral and learning disorders: Diagnosis and management. In Hellmuth, J. (ed.) Learning Disorders, Vol. 2, Seattle: Special Child Publications, 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 patterns of reading and s p e l l i n g . In Bateraan, B.D. (ed.) Learning Disorders, Vol. 4, Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1971, 298- 342. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687. Boder, Elena, & J a r r i c o , S y l v i a . The Boder Test of Reading- Spelling Patterns. New York: Grunne and Stratton, 1982. Borg, Walter R., & G a l l , Meredith D. Educational research, an introduction. Third Edition. 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 Child Neurology, 1979, .21 , 504-514. Buros, Oscar K. (ed.) The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1972. Co l l e t t e , M.A. Dyslexia and c l a s s i c pathognomic signs. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1979, 48, 1055-1062. 55 Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate data analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1971. Eisenberg, L. Reading disorders: Strategies for recognition and management. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1979, 29, 39-55. E l l i s , A.W. Developmental and acquired dyslexia: Some observations on Jorm (1979). Cognition, 1979, 1_, 413-420. Fischer, F.W., Liberman, J.T., & Shankweiler, D. Reading reversals and developmental dyslexia: A further study. Cortex, 1978, 14, 496-510. G r i f f i n , J.R., & Walton, H.N. Dyslexia Determination Test. Los Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a : Instructional Materials and Equipment Distri b u t o r s , 1981. Gross, K., & Rothenberg, S. An examination of methods used to test the visual perceptual d e f i c i t hypothesis of dyslexia. Journal 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 diagnosis of subtypes of developmental dyslexia with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Unpublished paper, University 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 research. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Jorm, A.F. The cognitive and neurological basis of developmental dyslexia: A theore t i c a l framework and review. Cognition, 1979a, 7_, 19-33. The nature of the reading d e f i c i t in developmental dyslexia: A reply to E l l i s . Cognition, 1979b, 1_, 421-433. King, Ethel M. (ed.) Canadian Tests of Basic S k i l l s , manual for administrators, supervisors and counsellors. Thomas Nelson and Sons (Canada) Ltd., 1975. Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E.K. Developmental factors i n reading and writing backwardness. In Money, J. (ed.) The disabled reader: Education of the dyslexic c h i l d . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Leisman, G. Aetological factors in dyslexia: Ocular-motor factors in visual perceptual response e f f i c i e n c y . Perceptual . 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 inference for education and psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. 56 Masland, R.L. Subgroups in dyslexia: Issues of d e f i n i t i o n . B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society. 1979, 29., 23-29. Mattis, S., French, J.H., & Rapin, J. Dyslexia in children and young adults: Three independent neuropsychological syndromes. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1975, 17, 150-163. Mindell, P. Dyslexia and sequential order errors in reading. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1978, 28, 124-141. Murray, M.E. Psychological evaluation of s p e c i f i c learning disorders. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1978, 28.» 142-159. Myklebust, H.R. Development and disorders of written language: Picture Story Language Test. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1965. Quiros, J.B. de Dysphasia and dyslexia in school children. F o l i a Phoniatr i c a , 1964, 1_6, 201-? (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687.) Rutter, M., Tizard, J., & Whitmore, K. (ed.) Education, health and behaviour. London, England: Longman Group Ltd., 1970. Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I.Y. Reading behavior in dyslexia: Is there a d i s t i n c t i v e pattern? B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1978, 28, 144-153. Sklar, B., Hanley, J., & Simmons, W.W. An E.E.G. experiment aimed toward i d e n t i f y i n g dyslexic children. Nature, 1972, 240-246. Slosson, Richard L. Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) and Oral Reading Test (SORT) for Children and Adults. Second Edition. East Aurora, New York: Slosson Educational Publications 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 in educationally handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral di s s e r t a t i o n , Claremont College, C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1973, 15, 663-687.) Tatsuoka, M.M. Multivariate analysis: Techniques for educational and psychological research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971 Van den Bos, K.P. Cognitive a b i l i t i e s and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1980, 30, 94-111. 57 Van de Geer, J.P. Introduction to multivariate analysis for the s o c i a l sciences. San Francisco: W.H, Freeman and Company, 1971. Weaver, P.A. Comprehension, r e c a l l and dyslexia: A proposal for the application of schema theory. B u l l e t i n of the Orton Society, 1978,.28, 92-113. 58 APPENDIX Table 6 i s included i n the appendix to present the C. T. B. S . and SIT information gathered on the subjects which was used to determine that they met the c r i t e r i a for inclusion in their respective groups. A summary of this informaition was included in the description of the sample found in Chapter 3 . The Appendix also contains f i v e graphs which i l l u s t r a t e the raw scores obtained by the subjects on the D.D.T., as tabulated in Table 2 . From the graphs i t may be observed that the Experimental Group tends to have a larger range of scores while the Control Group has higher scores in E i d e t i c reading (Xy) and both sp e l l i n g tests (X^, X^). As would be expected, Graph 3 shows the Experimental Group to have more Unknown words. A bias of the Test results in the Experimental Group having more Phonetic words read (Xj?) than the Control Group. This results from the fact that the E i d e t i c and Phonetic reading scores are somewhat inversely proportional. That i s , the Control Group who read more words by sight had fewer words l e f t to be read phonetically. The Experimental Group, on the other hand, with fewer sight words read, had more words to attempt phonetically and thus were able to read more Phonetic words than the Control. However, t o t a l words read would s t i l l favour the Control Group over the Experimental Group. From the graphs i t should also be readily apparent why E i d e t i c reading overwhelms the other scores in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g 59 the groups. Graph 1 i l l u s t r a t e s the wide range of the Experimental group's Ei d e t i c (sight) reading scores and their tendency to be considerably lower than the Control group's, while the other graphs do not demonstrate the same d i v e r s i t y . From this graph i t can also be seen why four of the Experimental Group (#15, 16, 19, 22) were misplaced, as they are the highest scores of that group. Likewise i t shows subject #13, who was misplaced, to be an unusually low score in the Control Group. Subject #14 i s the only misplaced subject not c l e a r l y explained by Graph 1. Reference to Graph 3, however, w i l l show that Subject #14 has an obvious number of Unknown words which, i n combination with a r e l a t i v e l y low E i d e t i c score, l i k e l y explains why this subject was misplaced. 60 Table 6 Preliminary Information on Subjects Control Group C.T.B.S. C.T.B.S. GRADE GENDER VOCABULARY COMPREHENSION SLOSSON 1 7.3 M 7.5 7.1 89 2 7.3 M 7.5 7.7 106 3 7.3 F 6.8 7.4 106 4 7.3 F 7.4 7.4 98 5 6.3 M 6.9 6.7 97 6 6.3 F 6.7 6.6 108 7 6.3 M 6.9 6.3 100 8 6.3 F 5.5 6.3 91 9 6.3 F 6.1 6.4 100 10 5.3 F 5.6 5.2 94 11 5.3 M 5.3 5.4 102 12 5.3 F 5.4 5.2 109 13 4.3 M 4.8 4.3 109 14 4.3 F 4.9 4.3 101 Experimental Group 15 7.3 M 6.7 5.0 86 16 7.3 F 5.5 3.7 86 17 6.3 F 4.7 4.3 85 18 6.3 M 5.7 3.5 116 19 6.3 F 4.8 4.5 103 20 6.3 M 6.0 4.3 103 21 6.3 M 3.5 4.3 91 22 6.3 M 5.5 4.5 101 23 5.3 F 3.8 3.3 91 24 5.3 F 2.5 2.8 101 25 5.3 . M 3.3 2.4 95 26 5.3 F 2.8 3.3 97 27 5.3 F 3.3 2.9 94 28 4.3 M 2.1 2.5 92 61 !i Graph 1 Raw Score - Eid e t i c Reading (X^) 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CONTROL GROUP 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SUBJECT NUMBER 62 Graph 2 Raw Score - Phonet i c Reading (X2) Graph 3 Raw Score - Unknown Words Reading (X3) Graph 4 Raw Score - E i d e t i c Spelling (X4) Graph 5 Raw Score - Phonetic Spelling (X5)

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 79 4
Canada 28 4
China 4 16
Malaysia 2 0
India 2 0
Australia 1 0
United Kingdom 1 0
Egypt 1 0
Germany 1 3
City Views Downloads
Unknown 41 4
Montreal 11 4
Austin 8 0
Chattanooga 7 0
Ashburn 5 0
Mountain View 5 2
Marlton 4 0
North Vancouver 4 0
Oklahoma City 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Delta 3 0
Levis 2 0
Toronto 2 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items