UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation into the developmental differences between reading delayed and successful reading students Loy, Richard Douglas 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 L69.pdf [ 4.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100494.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100494-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100494-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100494-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100494-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100494-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100494-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100494-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100494.ris

Full Text

An Investigation Into the Developmental Differences Between Reading Delayed and Successful Reading Students By Richard Douglas Loy A Thesis Submitted In P a r t i a l Fulfilment For the Degree of Master of Arts i n The Faculty Of Graduate Studies (Department of Educational Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standards The University of B r i t i s h Columbia February 1991. Richard Loy 1991. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of £bt/c#J-/£AJ/VL PsyCMDLn^y The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) i i A b s t r a c t Some s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a v e made a p r a c t i c e o f u s i n g a d v e r s e i n c i d e n t s i n a c h i l d ' s e a r l y d e v e l o p m e n t a s t h e b a s i s f o r d i a g n o s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s a n d a t t r i b u t i n g t h o s e i n c i d e n t s t o a p o s s i b l e o r g a n i c b a s e . H o w e v e r , t h e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h h a s n o t b e e n w h o l e l y s u p p o r t i v e o f a l i n k b e t w e e n d e v e l o p m e n t a l h i s t o r y c o n c e r n s a n d t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f r e a d i n g r e l a t e d s k i l l s . T h u s , t h i s r e s e a r c h was i n t e n d e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h i n c i d e n t s i n t h e r e p o r t e d d e v e l o p m e n t a l h i s t o r y p r o v i d e d t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r s o f l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l h i s t o r y f o r m f r o m t h e U . B . C . E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c was u s e d a s t h e d a t a g a t h e r i n g i n s t r u m e n t a n d r e q u e s t e d p a r e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e c h i l d ' s f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d , p r e g n a c y a n d b i r t h i n g f a c t o r s , a c q u i s i t i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l m i l e s t o n e s , a n d h e a l t h h i s t o r y . T h i s i n s t r u m e n t was c h o s e n a s i t i s u n i f o r m l y c o m p l e t e d b y t h e U . B . C . s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s . T h i s r e s e a r c h was a l s o i n t e n d e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h a r e a s o f t h e f o r m w e r e t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e i n p r e d i c t i n g l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . O b t a i n e d s a m p l e s o f s u c c e s s f u l r e a d i n g s t u d e n t s (n=28) a n d d e l a y e d r e a d e r s (n=35) w e r e c o m p a r e d i n t e r m s o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d i n t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t a l h i s t o r i e s . R e s u l t s d i d s u b s t a n t i a t e some o f t h e p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h i n t e r m s o f t h e f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , p r e g n a n c y and b i r t h concerns, and developmental milestone p r o f i l e , previously associated with l a t e r reading d i f f i c u l t y . No s i g n i f i c a n t incidents were noted i n the health history section though i t was concluded that valuable information appeared i n a l l sections of the current developmental history form. However, t h i s research design did not allow for predictive s t a t i s t i c s as i n i t i a l l y intended due to the qu a l i t a t i v e nature of the data c o l l e c t e d . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page A b s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i v L i s t of Appendixes v L i s t of Tables v i 1 INTRODUCTION I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem 1 Relevance of the Research 2 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 4 Research Questions 5 O r g a n i z a t i o n of T h i s Thesis 7 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE T h e o r i e s of C a u s a l i t y 8 Prem a t u r i t y and B i r t h i n g Problems 11 Environmental F a c t o r s 20 Other Developmental F a c t o r s 22 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Procedures 27 The Instruments 28 V a r i a b l e s 33 P o p u l a t i o n and Samples 34 C o n t r o l of V a r i a b l e s 37 Data C o l l e c t i o n 39 Data A n a l y s i s 39 4 RESULTS Research R e s u l t s 42 Family Background 43 Pregnancy and B i r t h 52 Developmental Mil e s t o n e s 58 Heal t h H i s t o r y 61 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION D i s c u s s i o n 64 Summary 69 Recommendations f o r Fu r t h e r Research 71 LIST OF APPENDIXES Page Appendix 1: The Developmental H i s t o r y Form 78 Appendix 2: L e t t e r t o Parents 81 Appendix 3: SOMPA S o c i o c u l t u r a l S c a l e 82 Appendix 4: Teacher E s t i m a t i o n of Reading Achievement 85 Appendix 5: Obtained IQ Scores and Reading Performance 86 Appendix 6: Data Coding Format 87 Appendix 7: Suggested R e v i s i o n of the Developmental H i s t o r y Form 91 v i LIST OF TABLES Page T a b l e 2.1 Summary of Previous Research and F a c t o r s Reported t o have S i g n i f i c a n t P o s i t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s with Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s 25 Tabl e 3.1 Intended Areas of Comparison Between Groups. 39 Table 4.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sample S u b j e c t s ' f o r Gender and Age 4 3 Table 4.2 Groups' Mean Grade Placement a t Time of Response 44 Table 4.3 Group Frequencies and S t a t i s t i c s f o r Grade Retainment H i s t o r y 44 Table 4.4 Group S u b j e c t s ' P r e s c h o o l Attendance 45 Table 4.5 Comparison of Target Group's P r e s c h o o l Attendance and Grade Retainment 46 Table 4.6 Groups' P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l Background .... 47 Tabl e 4.7 Comparison Across Groups of P a r e n t a l Mean Grade Achieved 47 Table 4.8 Comparison of P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s 48 Table 4.9 D i s t r i b u t i o n of SOMPA S o c i o c u l t u r a l R atings Between Groups 49 Table 4.10 Comparison Between Samples' of P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s and He a l t h H i s t o r y Problems 50 Table 4.11 Other Reported Family Background C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 51 Table 4.12 Med i c a l S u p e r v i s i o n Reported A c r o s s Samples 53 Table 4.13 P a t t e r n of Doctor S u p e r v i s i o n i n R e l a t i o n t o P r e n a t a l Complications 54 Table 4.14 Comparison Across Groups wi t h Respect t o Length of Labour 55 Table 4.15 Type of B i r t h Reported f o r Sample S u b j e c t s 55 v i d Table 4.16 Comparison Between Groups of Reported B i r t h w e i g h t s 56 Table 4.17 Other C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Reported f o r Su b j e c t ' s B i r t h 57 Table 4.18 Reported General Rate of Development 58 Table 4.19 Comparison Between Rate of Development and P r e n a t a l Complications Across Groups 59 Table 4.20 Nature of Concerns f o r Subject's Development Across Groups 60 Table 4.21 Mean Number of Developmental H i s t o r y Concerns Across Samples 60 Table 4.22 Comparison of S p e c i f i c I l l n e s s e s Across Groups 62 Table 4.23 Comparison of the Reported S e v e r i t y of H e a l t h Concerns Across Samples 62 Table 4.24 Comparison of Number of Subjects with H e a l t h H i s t o r y and P h y s i c a l I n j u r i e s Across Samples.63 1 Chapter 1 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the Problem Over the years the d i a g n o s i s of c h i l d r e n ' s r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s has i n c l u d e d hypotheses about the c a u s a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o the d i f f i c u l t y . T h i s has c r e a t e d a myriad of s o p h i s t i c a t e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n l a b e l s which have i n c l u d e d : minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n , n e u r o l o g i c a l " s o f t " s i g n s , l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and d y s l e x i a . The commonality among these l a b e l s i s t h e i r ambiguous d e f i n i t i o n and the assumed c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p they imply between e a r l y p h y s i o l o g i c a l a d v e r s i t y and re a d i n g achievement. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s assumed c a u s a l a s s o c i a t i o n i s based on two i n t e r r e l a t e d t h e o r i e s . F i r s t , t h a t r e p r o d u c t i v e c a u s a l i t y m a n i f e s t s i t s e l f i n a continuum ranging from the more severe, namely, death and mental r e t a r d a t i o n (Kawi & Pasamanick 1958), t o the more d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e c t , minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n , which may i n h i b i t the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g s k i l l s (Kawi & Pasamanick 1958). Secondly, t h a t t h e r e e x i s t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g p h y s i o l o g i c a l anomolies p a r t i c u l a r t o r e a d i n g d e l a y e d c h i l d r e n . Though much r e s e a r c h has been attempted i n t h i s area, the s t r e n g t h of t h i s proposed a s s o c i a t i o n between these developmental f a c t o r s and readi n g d i f f i c u l t y has y e t t o be adequately e s t a b l i s h e d . Though numerous i n v e s t i g a t i o n s e x i s t , Balow, Rubin and Rosin's (1974) review of s t u d i e s o f pre- and p e r i n a t a l f a c t o r s and re a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s found 9 2 of 14 r e t r o s p e c t i v e and 11 of 14 follow-up s t u d i e s s u p p o r t i v e of an a s s o c i a t i o n . However, they concluded t h a t much more i n v e s t i g a t i o n u t i l i z i n g b e t t e r r e s e a r c h designs i s needed be f o r e the p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e of s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s reaches an a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . An attempt t o address t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y i s made i n t h i s study by comparing the s t r e n g t h of the c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r pre-, p e r i - , and p o s t n a t a l f a c t o r s of a r e a d i n g delayed sample wi t h a c o n t r o l sample. Relevance o f the Research Parents of c h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d t o the U.B.C. Ed u c a t i o n C l i n i c are r e q u i r e d t o complete a developmental h i s t o r y form (Appendix 1) d e t a i l i n g c e r t a i n f a c e t s of the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y background, p r e - and p e r i n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s , h e a l t h h i s t o r y , and developmental m i l e s t o n e s . The review of these recorded i n c i d e n t s i s intended t o pr o v i d e i n s i g h t i n t o the nature of the c h i l d ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s s i n c e occurrences i n c h i l d h o o d development have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n forms of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . Thus, the presence of traumatic i n c i d e n t s i n the developmental h i s t o r y i s o f t e n used as the b a s i s f o r c l a s s i f y i n g c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e i v e d r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s as having an o r g a n i c base r a t h e r than language r e l a t e d , m o t i v a t i o n a l , o r other p o s s i b l e causes. Though much r e s e a r c h has been attempted i n r e l a t e d areas, many s t u d i e s c i t e d a need f o r more r e s e a r c h due t o 3 t h e i r i n c o n c l u s i v e f i n d i n g s . These r e s e a r c h e r s , a f t e r completing t h e i r r e s e a r c h , have r e c o g n i z e d the flaws i n t h e i r designs which i n c l u d e d i n s e n s i t i v e or non-standardized i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and vague d e f i n i t i o n of terms. T h i s r e s e a r c h design employs more c o n t r o l s on the s u b j e c t s than those c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e review. Though many r e s e a r c h e r s recognized t h a t socio-economic s t a t u s (SES) c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y with academic achievement, few attempted t o c o n t r o l f o r i t . Some p o s t u l a t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n i n low income f a m i l i e s were subject t o more d e t r i m e n t a l p r e - and-p e r i n a t a l i n c i d e n t s than those i n higher income f a m i l i e s w h i l e o t h e r c h i l d development s p e c i a l i s t s a s s e r t e d t h a t low academic success was due t o poor p o s t n a t a l environmental f a c t o r s . By u t i l i z i n g the System of M u l t i c u l t u r a l P l u r a l i s t i c Assessment (SOMPA), S o c i o c u l t u r a l S c a l e , t h i s r e s e a r c h addressed t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y . Though many of the items i n c l u d e d i n the Ed u c a t i o n C l i n i c Developmental H i s t o r y Form were p e r c e i v e d as being s i g n i f i c a n t i n pre v i o u s r e s e a r c h , none of t h a t r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e d such a comprehensive i n v e n t o r y . Though s l i g h t l y r e v i s e d f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h , the items r e t a i n e d from the c u r r e n t E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c form were based on much of the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . Thus, the instrument was l e s s l i k e l y t o be rendered i n s e n s i t i v e by items of l i t t l e or no v a l u e . The items i n c l u d e d i n the developmental h i s t o r y form cover a more e x t e n s i v e p e r i o d of the c h i l d ' s e a r l y l i f e than most of the e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h . The bulk of the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h 4 c e n t e r i n g around pregnancy and b i r t h f a c t o r s has c o n s i s t e d of l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s which, by design, may not have taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l of the e a r l y developmental h i s t o r y which i s i n c l u d e d i n the E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c form. Furthermore, they may not have been a b l e t o predetermine a d i s t i n c t sample of c h i l d r e n t h a t would r e q u i r e academic i n t e r v e n t i o n and y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t new c o r r e l a t i o n s of p r e - and p e r i n a t a l f a c t o r s , developmental milestones or h e a l t h h i s t o r y i n c i d e n t s w i t h normal r e a d i n g students. F i n a l l y , one may a l s o c o n s i d e r t h i s a p a r t i a l v a l i d a t i o n of the content of the U.B.C. Developmental H i s t o r y Form. R e s u l t s may i n d i c a t e items of the c u r r e n t form which may be more or l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than c u r r e n t l y p e r c e i v e d , and areas r e q u i r i n g r e v i s i o n . D e f i n i t i o n of Terms For the purposes of t h i s r e s e a r c h these terms w i l l be d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : Reading Delayed - c h i l d r e n s c o r i n g below the 16th p e r c e n t i l e on the B r i t i s h Columbia Quick I n d i v i d u a l E v a l u a t i o n T e s t (B.C. QUIET). S u c c e s s f u l i n Reading - s u b j e c t s who are observed by t h e i r t eachers t o be meeting grade l e v e l e x p e c t a t i o n s . Socio-Economic S t a t u s (SES) w i l l be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o b t a i n e d from the System of M u l t i p l u r a l i s t i c  Assessment (SOMPA). 5 P r e n a t a l , P e r i n a t a l , and P o s t n a t a l - the s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t s which occured p r i o r t o , d u r i n g , and immediately a f t e r b i r t h as d e s c r i b e d i n the U.B.C. developmental h i s t o r y form. 1 Research Questions A f t e r a c a r e f u l review of the l i t e r a t u r e i t was apparent t h a t the c o n t r o v e r s y over the p o s s i b l e a s s o c i a t i o n between e a r l y developmental f a c t o r s and the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g s k i l l s s t i l l e x i s t e d . A s s i s t a n c e i n c l a r i f i c a t i o n f o r f u t u r e assessments was necessary t o determine the impact of the e a r l y c h i l d h o o d environment and/or c e n t r a l nervous system (CNS) a d v e r s i t y on l a t e r r e a d i n g achievement. T h i s study was designed t o address the q u e s t i o n of whether the developmental h i s t o r i e s of read i n g delayed c h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d t o the U.B.C. Education d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those B.C. c h i l d r e n who are s u c c e s s f u l r e a d e r s . By c l a r i f y i n g the ambiguous terminology p r e v a l e n t i n the l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g student's academic achievement and u s i n g o n l y one prominent measure of r e a d i n g achievement, we i n c r e a s e d the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t our samples were c l e a r l y d i s t i n c t from each other. T h i s study w i l l attempt t o answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. Which one of the fou r areas of developmental h i s t o r i e s p r o v i d e s the best p r e d i c t o r of r e a d i n g d e l a y : f a m i l y background, pregnancy and b i r t h , developmental m i l e s t o n e s , or h e a l t h h i s t o r y ? 6 2. Which of the items q u a n t i f i e d i n the developmental h i s t o r y form are the most s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d i n g delay? 3. Is the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form d e t a i l e d and s e n s i t i v e enough t o be used as a s c r e e n i n g instrument One of the i n t e n t s of the f i r s t q u e s t i o n i s t o e x p l o r e the c o n t r o v e r s y surrounding the p o s s i b l e a s s o c i a t i o n between rea d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s and r e p o r t e d adverse developmental f a c t o r s . I f the f a m i l y background, composed of mostly i n f a n t home environmental f a c t o r s , appears l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than the h e a l t h h i s t o r y or pregnancy and b i r t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p h y s i c a l or n e u r o l o g i c a l a d v e r s i t y , then we may c o n t r i b u t e t o the case of those who b e l i e v e i n the a s s o c i a t i o n between n e u r o l o g i c a l s t r e s s f a c t o r s and the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g s k i l l s . T h i s q u e s t i o n may a l s o prove u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l guidance t o s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t s as t o which of these areas of the s u b j e c t ' s developmental h i s t o r y should r e c e i v e the most a t t e n t i o n t o a s s i s t i n the c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s of delayed r e a d e r s . The l a s t two q u e s t i o n s are perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n regards t o r e l e v a n c e f o r f u t u r e d i a g n o s i s of r e a d i n g d e l a y . The r e s u l t s c o u l d i d e n t i f y the most s i g n i f i c a n t r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s and deemphasize the l e s s prominent f a c t o r s c u r r e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with r e a d i n g d e l a y . Again, t h i s may a l s o p r o v i d e g u i d e l i n e s f o r a r e v i s i o n of the c u r r e n t U.B.C. developmental h i s t o r y form which c o u l d p r o v i d e a more 7 a c c u r a t e d i a g n o s i s of the c a u s a l f a c t o r s of delayed a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g s k i l l s . O r g a n i z a t i o n of T h i s T h e s i s T h i s t h e s i s i n c l u d e s f o u r a d d i t i o n a l c h a p t e r s . The review of the l i t e r a t u r e i s presented i n Chapter 2. Chapter 3 d e s c r i b e s the intended r e s e a r c h methodology, i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n and sample c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The o b t a i n e d r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 4. F i n a l l y , Chapter 5 c o n s i s t s of the summary, c o n c l u s i o n s , suggestions f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , and a proposed r e v i s i o n of the developmental h i s t o r y form. 8 Chapter 2 Review of the L i t e r a t u r e Theories o f C a u s a l i t y ; Attempts t o understand the causes of readi n g d i f f i c u l t i e s have c r e a t e d p o l a r i z e d pools of r e s e a r c h and opini o n s e i t h e r s u p p o r t i v e or unsupportive of the n o t i o n t h a t e a r l y c e n t r a l nervous system (CNS) a d v e r s i t y c o n t i n u e s t o i n h i b i t r e a d i n g achievement. T h i s chapter w i l l p r e s e n t some of the more rec e n t r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t i n g the w i d e l y accepted^causal a s s o c i a t i o n of c e r t a i n p h y s i o l o g i c a l — ™~ " -a d v e r s x t i e s as w e l l as>proposed e a r l y developmental f a c t o r s with d i f f e r e n t measures of re a d i n g and gen e r a l academic achievement. T h i s review of the r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h p r e s e n t s a wide v a r i e t y of formal and i n f o r m a l academic measuring instruments and i n v e s t i g a t i v e procedures from which t o choose when i n v e s t i g a t i n g r e a d i n g d e l a y . Given t h a t r e a d i n g i s a process which r e q u i r e s the i n t e g r a t i o n of many d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and processes, i t stands t o reason t h a t e a r l y forms of CNS i n s u l t may w e l l have an adverse e f f e c t on the e f f i c i e n c y of s k i l l s i n r e a d i n g i s p o s s i b l e o n l y because an i n c r e d i b l y complex a r r a y of p h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s complement and i n t e g r a t e with each other i n s p e c i f i c ways which f a c i l i t a t e the r e a d i n g p r o c e s s . R i c h a r d Carner (1981) s t a t e s t h a t the a c q u i s i t i o n of 9 l e a r n i n g . A c c o r d i n g t o Peter P e l o s i (1981) the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p r o f i l e of the d i s a b l e d reader t y p i c a l l y i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : good v i s i o n , good p h y s i c a l h e a l t h , good m e n t a l i t y (probably r e f e r e n c e t o average or b e t t e r measurable c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s ) , i n a b i l i t y t o r e c o g n i z e p r i n t e d words, and the i n a b i l i t y t o comprehend w r i t t e n words. Benton's (1975) review of s t u d i e s of f a c t o r s t h a t may be a s s o c i a t e d with d y s l e x i a suggests d y s l e x i c s compared t o normal readers are more l i k e l y t o have a) impaired d i r e c t i o n a l sense b) impaired i n t e r s e n s o r y i n t e g r a t i o n c) impaired l i n g u i s t i c f a c i l i t y and d) impaired s e q u e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n . He hypothesized t h a t the o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s of the r e s e a r c h suggest t h a t a n e u r o l o g i c a l or a t l e a s t a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n of developmental d y s l e x i a i s t e n a b l e , even though s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s are weak. V e l l u t i n o , e t a l , (1977) concluded t h a t d y s l e x i a i s p r i m a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d with v e r b a l mediation or v e r b a l p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s , probably a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b a s i c language problems, and t h a t the a s s o c i a t e d p e r c e p t u a l problems are o n l y a secondary m a n i f e s t a t i o n . However, t h i s view on the cause of reading development d e l a y s has not been supported by other r e s e a r c h . E d i t h Richards (1981) s t a t e s t h a t language s k i l l s , i n c l u d i n g r e a d i n g , are g e n e r a l l y assumed t o be f u n c t i o n s of the l e f t hemisphere f o r the 85% of the people who are r i g h t handed and even f o r more than h a l f of the 15% t h a t are l e f t handed. About 3% of the l e f t handers have language f u n c t i o n i n g i n the r i g h t b r a i n , and the r e s t i n v o l v e both s i d e s of the b r a i n . She a l s o c i t e s other r e s e a r c h (Leong 1980; P r e s t o n G u t h r i e & C h i l d s 1974) which supported her views of n e u r o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s and l a t e r a l p r e f e r e n c e i n r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . T h i s theme of the p o s s i b l e n e u r o l o g i c a l anomolies a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h i l d r e n w i t h r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s i s brought i n t o prominence when c o n s i d e r i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of b r a i n i n s u l t , or i n j u r y , o c c u r i n g a t b i r t h . There e x i s t s , as Pasamanick and Knobloch (1974) s t a t e d , "a continuum of r e p r o d u c t i v e i n s u l t r e s u l t i n g i n v a r y i n g degrees of n e u r o p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t y . " . In t h e i r review of the follow-up s t u d i e s performed on r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n , Watson, Watson, and Fredd (1982) found t h a t s t u d i e s have extremely v a r y i n g d e f i n i t i o n s of the term r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . The c r i t e r i a ranges from a vague " c l i n i c a l d i a g n o s i s " t o a r b i t r a r y p e r c e n t i l e rankings ranging from 20 t o 35 on v a r i o u s s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . In a l l they reviewed 11 follow-up s t u d i e s f o r s i x c r i t e r i a : 1) a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample 2) a t l e a s t one s t a n d a r d i z e d instrument a t i n i t i a l e v a l u a t i o n 3) a t l e a s t one s t a n d a r d i z e d instrument a t post e v a l u a t i o n 4) a t l e a s t 60% of the o r i g i n a l sample present a t post e v a l u a t i o n 5) s u b j e c t s possess i n t e l l i g e n c e scores w i t h i n the average range and 6) t h a t the s e v e r i t y of the i n i t i a l d i s a b i l i t y be c o n t r o l l e d i n some manner. Upon a n a l y s i s of these s t u d i e s they concluded t h a t approximately 20 t o 25% of the r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n w i l l be reading a t grade l e v e l towards the end of elementary s c h o o l , perhaps as few as 4% of the s e v e r e l y r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d a t t a i n a normal r e a d i n g l e v e l d u r i n g h i g h s c h o o l , and the r a t e of improvement d u r i n g adulthood i s l e s s c e r t a i n . I t should be c a u t i o n e d t h a t these f i g u r e s were d e r i v e d from a wide v a r i e t y of r e s e a r c h designs i n c l u d i n g some wit h "treatment" or i n t e r v e n t i o n programmes. Pr e m a t u r i t y and B i r t h i n g Problems; Many s t u d i e s centered around premature b i r t h s as having a d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on the s u b j e c t ' s r e a d i n g performance. The terminology has r e c e n t l y been m o d i f i e d t o low b i r t h weight c h i l d r e n which allows f o r more p r e c i s e e m p i r i c a l measure. One of the e a r l i e s t , Uddenburg's (1955) study, concluded t h a t socio-economic s t a t u s (SES) i s not a determ i n i n g f a c t o r when c o n s i d e r i n g the achievement of premature b a b i e s . The mothers i n h i s prematurely born sample came from a high e r SES l e v e l than the mothers i n the c o n t r o l group. S t i l l the prematures showed poorer perceptual-motor and r e a d i n g performance. D e h i r s c h , Jansky, and Langford (1966) compared 53 premature i n f a n t s matched with a c o n t r o l sample the same s i z e . At age th r e e they were t e s t e d and c o n t r o l l e d f o r sensory d e f i c i t s , E n g l i s h as the predominant language, and r a t e d IQs w i t h i n one standard d e v i a t i o n from the mean of 100. Academic t e s t i n g a t k i n d e r g a r t e n , grade d and 2 showed 12 the prematures performing s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s w e l l i n rea d i n g , w r i t i n g , and s p e l l i n g . When the samples were rearranged f o r b i r t h w e i g h t , the c h i l d r e n born a t or below 1500 gm. s t i l l performed c o n s i s t e n t l y l e s s w e l l . However, i t i s important t o note t h a t s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t scores on such a young p o p u l a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y a t age th r e e , are somewhat un s t a b l e i n terms of r e l i a b i l i t y . Another study of low b i r t h weight c h i l d r e n , 1000 t o 1750 gm., was conducted by M.E. H e r t z i g (1981). The sample of c h i l d r e n from s o c i a l l y advantaged i n t a c t f a m i l i e s was examined n e u r o l o g i c a l l y a t 6 mos., 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8 ye a r s of age f o r n e u r o l o g i c a l " s o f t s i g n s " , or impairments which are not r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e or measurable on s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments. However, the speech, balance, and c o o r d i n a t i o n were not ev a l u a t e d w i t h s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments though most of the t a s k s requested of the s u b j e c t s were s i m i l a r t o the SOMPA p h y s i c a l d e x t e r i t y t a s k s . The s u b j e c t s were a r b i t r a r i l y r a t e d as normal, m i l d l y and markedly impaired. P e r i n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s were found i n 19 of 20 c h i l d r e n r a t e d as having n e u r o l o g i c a l " s o f t s i g n s " , and 12 of 13 c h i l d r e n r a t e d as having "hard s i g n s " which are more e a s i l y observed and assessed w i t h s t a n d a r d i z e d i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . Noble-Jamieson, Lukeman, Silverman and Pamela (1982) s t u d i e d a smal l sample of 23 i n f a n t s weighing 1500 gm. or l e s s a t b i r t h w i t h a c o n t r o l group matched f o r age, gender, and s o c i a l c l a s s , a l l born a t term and randomly s e l e c t e d . Reading was assessed i n grade 2 by the S c h o n e l l Graded Word 13 Reading T e s t and scores were converted t o q u o t i e n t s (RA/CA x 1 0 0 ) . The low b i r t h weight group was r e p o r t e d t o score s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower ( p < . 0 0 0 1 ) . In a more ex t e n s i v e e v a l u a t i o n , N i c k e l , Bennett, and Lamson ( 1 9 8 2 ) s t u d i e d 25 of 45 (drawn from 296 born) s u r v i v i n g c h i l d r e n with b i r t h w e i g h t s 1000 gm. or l e s s . 20 of the s u r v i v o r s were Appropriate f o r G e s t a t i o n a l Age (AGA) and 5 were Small f o r G e s t a t i o n a l Age (SGA). With no c o n t r o l group o r c o n t r o l f o r age at follow-up (mean age 1 0 . 6 ) they a d m i n i s t e r e d s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s i n c l u d i n g : Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e For C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R), Wide Range Achievement T e s t (WRAT), D u r r e l l A n a l y s i s of Reading, Bender V i s u a l Motor G e s t a l t , and the Motor Free V i s u a l P e r c e p t i o n T e s t (MFVPT). They found low performances on the a r i t h m e t i c r e a s o n i n g s u b t e s t of the WISC-R, a r i t h m e t i c s u b t e s t of the WRAT, and re a d i n g comprehension. They a l s o found t h a t p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n c o r r e l a t e d with both WISC-R su b s c a l e and WRAT Reading sub t e s t s c o r e s . Though a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s do e x i s t , and were reviewed, they were not s p e c i f i c a l l y a ddressing r e a d i n g p r o g r e s s . However, these t h r e e s t u d i e s c e r t a i n l y support the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c h i l d r e n of premature b i r t h s experience a g r e a t e r amount of d i f f i c u l t y a c q u i r i n g r e a d i n g r e l a t e d s k i l l s . Problems d u r i n g d e l i v e r y and neonatal s t r e s s have a l s o been regarded as sources of the more dramatic forms of b r a i n i n s u l t such as mental r e t a r d a t i o n . Damage t o the n e u r o l o g i c a l processes necessary f o r r e a d i n g i s harder t o determine however, s i n c e the processes i n v o l v e d are not f u l l y understood or are not as e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d . Here a g a i n the r e s e a r c h i s not f u l l y s u p p o r t i v e of a d e f i n i t e l i n k , i n some cases p a r t i a l l y due t o poor r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s . A l a r g e r e t r o s p e c t i v e study by Kawi and Pasamanick (1958) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a s s o c i a t i o n of f a c t o r s of pregnancy w i t h r e a d i n g d i s o r d e r s i n c h i l d h o o d . They i n c l u d e d 205 c h i l d r e n d e s c r i b e d as r e t a r d e d i n r e a d i n g by two y e a r s , aged 10 to 14, and who possessed an IQ over 85. They found 16.6% of the r e t a r d e d readers and o n l y 1.5% of the c o n t r o l s had been exposed t o two or more maternal c o m p l i c a t i o n s . The c o m p l i c a t i o n s most a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e a d i n g d i s o r d e r s were: preeclampsia, h y p e r t e n s i v e d i s e a s e , and b l e e d i n g d u r i n g pregnancy - symptoms which they s t a t e are most l i k e l y t o produce anoxia. Furthermore, the frequency of premature b i r t h s , d e f i n e d here as below 5.5 l b s . , was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r . Mary S. Hoffman (1971) attempted t o c o r r e l a t e b i r t h and e a r l y c h i l d h o o d anomolies w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . However, f o r her study she compared 100 b l a c k c h i l d r e n who were not a c a d e m i c a l l y s u c c e s s f u l with 200 white c h i l d r e n who were a t t e n d i n g p r i v a t e s c h o o l s . Thus, her design f a i l e d t o maintain an even p r o f i l e of c u l t u r a l and SES background across samples. A r e t r o s p e c t i v e study by J.G. L y l e (1970) matched 54 r e t a r d e d readers w i t h a c o n t r o l group. A l l s u b j e c t s s i n the study were middle c l a s s E n g l i s h speaking boys. Retarded rea d e r s were d e f i n e d as those whose r e a d i n g age e q u i v a l e n t was 7.5 or lower on the S c h o n e l l Word R e c o g n i t i o n T e s t . His study concluded t h a t the best p r e d i c t o r s which d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the r e t a r d e d readers and normal readers were the speech f a c t o r s which i n c l u d e d : speech d e f e c t s and speech d e l a y s measured at 6 months and two years of age. L y l e a l s o concluded t h a t the v a r i a b l e s of toxemia, th r e a t e n e d m i s c a r r i a g e s , b l e e d i n g and low b i r t h weight were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o r e t a r d a t i o n i n r e a d i n g . A.C. Smith, e t a l , (1972) re c o g n i z e d the flaws i n Hoffman's r e s e a r c h and claimed t h a t through t h e i r subsequent r e s e a r c h they were able t o a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t 96.5% of the s u b j e c t s o b t a i n i n g abnormal p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e s and 100% of the s u b j e c t s o b t a i n i n g normal p r o f i l e s based on t h e i r p r e n a t a l and p e r i n a t a l h i s t o r i e s . In t h e i r l o n g i t u d i n a l study they found maternal age, g e s t a t i o n p e r i o d , maternal e d u c a t i o n , l a b o u r stages and c o m p l i c a t i o n s , d i s e a s e s of pregnancy, i n f e c t i o n s d u r i n g pregnancy, Apgar s c o r e s , h i g h e s t b i l i r u b i n , a t a x i a , delayed development, e x t r a o c c u l a r movement, and p e r i p h e r a l nerve a b n o r m a l i t i e s t o be r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t o r s of l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s . Denhoff, Hainsworth, and Hainsworth (1972) conducted the C o l l a b o r a t i v e Study (The N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s of H e a l t h C o l l a b o r a t i v e Study on the E t i o l o g y of C e r e b r a l P a l s y , Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , and Other N e u r o l o g i c a l and Sensory D i s o r d e r s of Childhood) i n v o l v i n g 14 medical c e n t r e s and d e t a i l e d o b s e r v a t i o n s made on 380 pregnancies t o develop an "at r i s k " index t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n by age one. T h e i r Index i n c l u d e d l i s t s of c o m p l i c a t i o n s and i n j u r i e s i n the B i r t h S t r e s s Index and F i r s t Year Index, and f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o p h y s i c a l s t a t u s and development i n the Neonatal Outcome Index and F i r s t Year Index. At seven years of age, the c h i l d r e n were a d m i n i s t e r e d the WISC-R, WRAT, and Meeting S t r e e t School Screening T e s t (MSSST) t o i d e n t i f y l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . T h e i r r e s u l t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the F i r s t Year S t r e s s Index and the MSSST, wh i l e the Neonatal Outcome and F i r s t Year Indexes c o r r e l a t e d w e l l with a l l t h r e e measures from .18 (p=.05) t o .38 (p=.01). From t h e i r r e s u l t s , the r e s e a r c h e r s i n d i c a t e d a promising a b i l i t y t o develop a s c r e e n i n g index t o i d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n with p o s s i b l e l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s a t age one. In Robert C o l l i g a n ' s (1974) p r o s p e c t i v e study of the p r e n a t a l r e c o r d s , b i r t h h i s t o r y , neonatal n e u r o l o g i c a l examinations, o b s t e t r i c d i a g n o s t i c summary, and complete 7 year p s y c h o l o g i c a l and n e u r o l o g i c a l data of 386 c h i l d r e n , he concluded t h a t the p e r i n a t a l s t r e s s l e v e l was not d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on p s y c h o l o g i c a l , n e u r o l o g i c a l , and language p r o f i c i e n c y t e s t s . However, upon reexamination, he s t a t e d t h a t h i s p e r i n a t a l s t r e s s scores used too many items t h a t had l i t t l e or no v a l u e and hence a f f e c t e d h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a continuum of r e p r o d u c t i v e c a u s a l i t y . G e r a l d Wiener (1974) compared 492 f u l l term w i t h 500 prematurely born i n f a n t s at ages 12 t o 13 u s i n g the Wechsler I n t e l l i g n e c e S c a l e For C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R). He r e p o r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i r t h weight and V e r b a l , Performance and F u l l S c a l e IQ s c o r e s . Furthermore, p e d i a t r i c examinations r e v e a l e d t h a t 51% of the i n f a n t s b e l ow 1500 gm. and 25% of those between 1500 t o 2500 gm. had some developmental or n e u r o l o g i c a l abnormality compared t o o n l y 13% f o r the f u l l term c o n t r o l sample. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , not a l l e v a l u a t i o n was done by s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments. Wiener developed h i s own " t h i n k i n g mode" index f o r p e r s e v e r a t i o n , c o n c r e t e t h i n k i n g , and comprehension d i f f i c u l t y and the teachers p r o v i d e d the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t r a t i n g s . A study by Broman, Bien, and Shaughnessy (1985) c o n t a i n e d a sample of 994 c h i l d r e n whose IQ was over 90 and more than one year delayed on the WRAT r e a d i n g , s p e l l i n g , and mathematics. The c o n t r o l group was s i x times as l a r g e as the e x p e r i m e n t a l . They screened f o r 114 pregnancy and p e r i n a t a l c o n d i t i o n s , 26 f a m i l y v a r i a b l e s , and some i n f a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . S i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s were r e p o r t e d t o be low SES, h i g h e r maternal p a r i t y , low maternal e d u c a t i o n , fewer p r e n a t a l v i s i t s , b i r t h c o m p l i c a t i o n s of h e a r t d i s e a s e and edema f o r whites, b i r t h c o m p l i c a t i o n s of toxemia f o r b l a c k s , a n e s t h e t i c s a t d e l i v e r y , and the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IQ. F a c t o r s c o r r e l a t i n g h i g h e s t f o r the poorest readers were the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t IQ, a t t e n t i o n span r a t i n g a t 7 y e a r s of age, maternal education, Bender VMG, and p r e n a t a l housing d e n s i t y . These r e s e a r c h e r s p r o v i d e d support f o r p o s s i b l e a s s o c i a t i o n of both e a r l y environmental and p e r i n a t a l i n c i d e n t s and g e n e r a l academic pro g r e s s . J e s s i e F r a n c i s - W i l l i a m s (1976) matched c h i l d r e n who had s u f f e r e d "some n e u r o l o g i c a l damage" i n the "new born" p e r i o d w i t h a c o n t r o l group. Using s e v e r a l academic and i n t e l l i g e n c e measures i n c l u d i n g the WISC-R, B r i t i s h I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e (BIS), Neale Reading Test and the Raven's Ma t r i x e s , they found t h a t t h e i r index group performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer on the Neale rea d i n g accuracy and comprehension, and computational s k i l l s . Though t h e i r c o n t r o l group matched the n a t i o n a l B r i t i s h f i g u r e s and were i n the same g e o g r a p h i c a l area, no mention of the SES of the index sample was made except t h a t "many moved as slum p r o p e r t y has been demolished and the f a m i l i e s rehoused." Smith and Wilborn (1977) examined the developmental h i s t o r i e s of a sample of 432 c h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d t o the P u p i l A p p r a i s a l Center a t North Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and assessed them w i t h a v a r i e t y of s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s . They developed a t a b l e which t i e d s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s t o t h e i r h i g h e s t p r e d i c t o r s . They found r e a d i n g d i s o r d e r s c o r r e l a t e d h i g h e s t w i t h : problems d u r i n g pregnancy, hand/eye dominance, type of b i r t h , and induced labour. Speech d i s o r d e r s c o r r e l a t e d most h i g h l y w i t h : blood i n c o m p a t a b i l i t y , induced labour, p o s t m a t u r i t y , hand/eye dominance. No mention of SES or e t h n i c i t y was i n c l u d e d i n the review u n f o r t u n a t e l y . L o r r a i n e F. C o l l e t t i (1979) conducted an e m p i r i c a l study of the p e r i n a t a l h i s t o r i e s of 50 c h i l d r e n , aged 7 t o 12, who e x h i b i t e d s i g n s of minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n (MBD). Her study concluded t h a t these c h i l d r e n had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e s of m i l d b i r t h c o m p l i c a t i o n s , induced b i r t h s , use of f o r c e p s , and lower Apgar s c o r e s . On the WISC-R, these c h i l d r e n performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s w e l l on the A r i t h m e t i c and D i g i t Span and s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r on the S i m i l a r i t i e s w h i l e a v e r a g i n g a F u l l Scale IQ of 100. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , C o l l e t t i f a i l e d t o provide a d e f i n i t i o n of MBD and, i n f a c t , chose c h i l d r e n who were con s i d e r e d l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d . N e i t h e r the nature or the extent of t h e i r l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s were d i s c u s s e d . C h i l d r e n c o n s i d e r e d t o be l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c o u l d have had c a u s a l f a c t o r s which were not n e u r o l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d . Hence her sample was probably more d i v e r s e than she p e r c e i v e d i t t o be. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study by Hunt, Tooley, and Ha r v i n (1982) was intended t o determine the extent and nature of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s i n underweight i n f a n t s of 1500 gm. or l e s s a t b i r t h . T e s t i n g t h e i r sample at age 8 they found 37% t o have some s o r t of d i s a b i l i t y . The most common i n c l u d e d language comprehension, v i s u a l - m o t o r i n t e g r a t i o n , a t t e n t i o n , c o n c e n t r a t i o n , and impulse c o n t r o l d e f i c i t s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the sample was q u i t e small and they f a i l e d t o c o n t r o l f o r e t h n i c i t y , SES, or sex. No mention was made of the instruments used or the l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e chosen. In h i s submission t o the Royal Commission on E d u c a t i o n , Micheal W h i t f i e l d (1988), B.C. C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l , s t a t e d t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , most of our high r i s k p e r i n a t a l c a r e s u r v i v o r s have an o v e r a l l IQ w i t h i n the normal range, but d e s p i t e t h i s have a high i n c i d e n c e of m u l t i p l e markers f o r e d u c a t i o n a l d i s a b i l i t y : a b n o r m a l i t i e s of speech and language development, f i n e motor c o o r d i n a t i o n and behaviour which make t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l remediation a complex c h a l l e n g e f o r the school system. When you t r y t o work with e d u c a t i o n a l problems you t r y t o access t h a t person by u s i n g o t h e r channels t h a t are open. With these s u b j e c t s many of the pathways are blocked. Environmental F a c t o r s : Some r e s e a r c h e r s are s u p p o r t i v e of the view t h a t p r e -and p e r i n a t a l f a c t o r s are poor p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d i n g success r a i s i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of a l i n k between low SES, poor e a r l y environmental c o n d i t i o n s , and p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n as having some i n f l u e n c e on the mental development of c h i l d r e n born under adverse c o n d i t i o n s . Samaroff (1977) s t a t e s h i s b e l i e f t h a t "ten times more c h i l d r e n had problems r e l a t e d t o the e f f e c t s of poor e a r l y environment than t o the e f f e c t s of p e r i n a t a l s t r e s s " . Kagan, e t a l , (1971) b e l i e v e d t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s which d e a l t with s u b t l e damage t o the c e n t r a l nervous system were more p r e v a l e n t i n c h i l d r e n of low SES. He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , whatever the cause, the c h i l d of poverty was m i s s i n g a c r i t i c a l s e t of experiences d u r i n g h i s f i r s t f i v e y e a r s . Tom C o l l i n (1974), i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n t o the Measurement i n Education Conference c i t e s the Minnesota E d u c a t i o n a l Assessment of Reading r e s e a r c h where they used the f a t h e r ' s occupation and p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n as an SES index. He c l a i m e d t h a t SES accounted f o r "about" 15% of the v a r i a t i o n i n performance between s c h o o l s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , C o l l i n f a i l e d t o mention how they measured the s t u d e n t s ' r e a d i n g performance. Ian S t . James-Roberts (1979) contends t h a t l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d i e s have shown t h a t the m a j o r i t y of c h i l d r e n e x p e r i e n c i n g p e r i - and p o s t n a t a l b r a i n i n s u l t were not handicapped l a t e r i n l i f e and t h a t the l o n g e r the f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d the l e s s d i f f e r e n c e between the r i s k and c o n t r o l groups. T h i s i s due t o two types of " p l a s t i c i t y " f o r the c e n t r a l nervous system: 1) i t s a b i l i t y t o generate a d a p t i v e behaviour 2) i n common with other body organs, i t can r e c u p e r a t e f o l l o w i n g damage. Cohen, Sigman, Parmelee, and Beckwith (1982) admitted t h a t t h e r e were higher i n c i d e n c e s of medical c o m p l i c a t i o n s w i t h i n the low SES p o p u l a t i o n . They s t a t e d t h a t the low SES p o p u l a t i o n experience the g r e a t e r s o c i a l hazards of p o v e r t y and f a m i l y d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . Yet i n t h e i r study of p e r i n a t a l r i s k and developmental outcomes i n preterm i n f a n t s they 22 f a i l e d t o make the sample r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p o p u l a t i o n i n terms of SES, e t h n i c i t y , or use of a c o n t r o l group. Research i n t h i s s e c t i o n presented mostly o p i n i o n w i t h l i t t l e r e s e a r c h t o support t h e i r p o s i t i o n t h a t e a r l y environmental f a c t o r s may be b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d i n g success than p e r i n a t a l i n c i d e n t s . Other Developmental F a c t o r s ; Hunter and Johnson (1971) conducted a study of 20 rea d i n g d i s a b l e d boys aged 7.11 t o 11.4 with a matched c o n t r o l group. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found r e l a t i v e t o b i r t h weight, premature b i r t h , b r e a t h i n g problems a t b i r t h , age a t which f i r s t walked or t a l k e d , number and k i n d of i l l n e s s e s o r present p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . However, 19 of the re a d i n g d i s a b l e d boys were f i r s t born, had mixed handedness, and had other f a m i l y members with r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . While t h i s study does suggest some e a r l y environmental f a c t o r s which may prove t o be p r e d i c t i v e , the smal l sample s i z e c o u l d have l i m i t e d the number of s i g n i f i c a n t c o n c l u s i o n s drawn. The " p l a s t i c i t y " of the b r a i n was researched by Chadwick, R u t t e r , S h a f f e r , and Shrout (1981) i n a study of 97 E n g l i s h c h i l d r e n who s u s t a i n e d a u n i l a t e r a l compound depressed f r a c t u r e of the s k u l l . The s t a n d a r d i z e d instruments i n c l u d e d many outdated t e s t s , which were not st a n d a r d i z e d on the B r i t i s h / S c o t t i s h sample they chose, as w e l l as a "shortened" v e r s i o n of the WISC-R. T h e i r r e s u l t s agreed w i t h other s t u d i e s (Rutter et a l (1980);Chadwick e t a l (1980)) t h a t c o g n i t i v e performance i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the o v e r a l l s e v e r i t y of b r a i n i n j u r y . For t h i s study, Backward i n Reading was d e f i n e d as being 2 or more years delayed on the Neale A n a l y s i s of Reading D i f f i c u l t y . They found t h a t t h i s d e l a y was l a r g e r the e a r l i e r the age at time of head i n j u r y ; but, the c o r r e l a t i o n never reached a l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . H.L. Bee et a l (1982) conducted a l o n g i t u d i n a l study of 193 c h i l d r e n i n S e a t t l e , Washington. About h a l f the mothers had a hig h school education or l e s s and 80 experienced no pregnancy or d e l i v e r y c o m p l i c a t i o n s . They compiled a l i s t of 36 p e r i n a t a l and i n f a n t p h y s i c a l s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n c l u d i n g : weight, Apgar scores, and head c i r c u m f e r e n c e . They concluded t h a t these were extremely weak p r e d i c t o r s of IQ or language p r o f i c i e n c y as measured by the Bayley S c a l e of I n f a n t Development, S t a n f o r d - B i n e t , S e q u e n t i a l Inventory of Communication Development, and The Language S c r e e n i n g T e s t . T h e i r assessment of mother-infant i n t e r a c t i o n , environmental q u a l i t y and f a m i l y ecology ( i e . s o c i a l support, maternal education) were concluded t o be b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s than the st a n d a r d i z e d instruments. C l e a r l y t h e r e are many d i s c r e p e n c i e s i n the f i n d i n g s of the s t u d i e s c i t e d i n t h i s chapter. Most of the s t u d i e s have been i n c o n c l u s i v e due to e r r o r s i n the r e s e a r c h designs such as l a c k of c o n t r o l s or comparison samples, i n s e n s i t i v e instruments, or poor c h o i c e of p o p u l a t i o n . Much of the r e s e a r c h has used r e a d i n g measures which were not s t a n d a r d i z e d on the p o p u l a t i o n s from which the samples were drawn. The d e f i n i t i o n of terms, i n c l u d i n g r e a d i n g performance, a l s o appears t o be one of the l a r g e s t problems. Thus, many of the previous r e s e a r c h e r s have c i t e d the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s . A summary of these previous f i n d i n g s i s i n c l u d e d i n t a b l e 2.1.. Upon i n s p e c t i o n , i t appears t h a t the pre-, p o s t -and p e r i n a t a l f a c t o r s have been noted most f r e q u e n t l y by these s t u d i e s t o have some r e l a t i o n s h i p with l a t e r r e a d i n g or g e n e r a l academic performance. 25 Table 2.1 Summary of Previous Research and F a c t o r s Reported t o have S i g n i f i c a n t P o s i t i v e C o r r e l a t i o n s With Reading D i f f i c u l t i e s authors p r e - , p o s t - f a m i l y low d e v e l . h e a l t h lang.S neur. p e r i n a t a l backgr. SES m i l e . h i s t . speech coord Benton V e l l u t i n o R ichards Pasamanick X Uddenburg X D e h i r s c h , * X Jansky e t a l H e r t z i g * X Noble- X Jamieson e t a l N i c k e l e t a l X Kawi & X Pasamanick A.C. Smith X Denhoff e t a l X Wiener X Broman,Bien, X Shaughnessy* Smith & X Wilborn C o l l e t t i * X (Table continues) Table 2.1 - continued authors p r e - , p o s t - f a m i l y low d e v e l . h e a l t h lang.S neur. p e r i n a t a l backgr. SES m i l e . h i s t . speech c o o r d Hunt e t a l * X F r a n c i s - X W i l l i a m s * J.G.Lyle X Hunter & X X Johnson Bee et a l * X X Tom C o l l i n s X * denotes g e n e r a l academic a b i l i t i e s . Chapter 3 Research Methodology The p r e c e d i n g chapter presented v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h procedures and t h e i r i n h e r e n t problems and assumptions t h a t were c o n s i d e r e d when d e s i g n i n g t h i s study. T h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the methodology chosen f o r t h i s study i n c l u d i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s of the i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , t a r g e t and comparison samples, data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s procedures, as w e l l as a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r s e l e c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n . Procedures From the review of the previous r e s e a r c h i t appeared t h a t the r e t r o s p e c t i v e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n method was the most e f f i c i e n t and comprehensive f o r t h i s study. P r o s p e c t i v e s t u d i e s i n t h i s area have been noted t o i n c l u d e f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v a l s which exceeded the time l i m i t a t i o n t h a t was allowed f o r t h i s study. P r o s p e c t i v e s t u d i e s a l s o f a c e the p o s s i b i l i t y of a high dropout r a t e f o r the s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t s which c o u l d have been l i m i t i n g f o r any e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s . Furthermore, s i n c e the i n t e n t of t h i s study was t o i d e n t i f y developmental d i f f e r e n c e s between two d i s t i n c t groups, a r e t r o s p e c t i v e procedure enabled us t o s e l e c t s u b j e c t s which maintained the d e s i r e d c o n t r o l l e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p r o v i d e d a l l the developmental f a c t o r s up t o the time of p a r e n t a l response t o the developmental h i s t o r y form. F i n a l l y , s i n c e the t a r g e t sample data were a l r e a d y c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s manner i t was l o g i c a l t o c o l l e c t the comparison d a t a i n the same manner. For t h i s study the t a r g e t sample was s e l e c t e d from the U.B.C. Ed u c a t i o n C l i n i c f i l e s of completed r e f e r r a l s f o r c h i l d r e n e x p e r i e n c i n g academic d i f f i c u l t y . These f i l e s i n c l u d e d a l l c h i l d r e n assessed a t the c l i n i c over the l a s t t h ree y ears (1984 t o 1986). The parents of the c h i l d r e n i n the comparison sample were sent a r e v i s i o n of the developmental h i s t o r y form used i n the c l i n i c w i t h a stamped s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope and an a p p r o p r i a t e cover l e t t e r (Appendix 2 ) . Comparison s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of the c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . The s e l e c t i o n and s c r e e n i n g procedures were designed t o i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the r e t u r n s from these parents would reach a l e v e l comparable t o the number of t a r g e t c h i l d r e n . The Instruments A. The U.B.C. Developmental H i s t o r y Form; T h i s form (Appendix 1) was used as the data g a t h e r i n g instrument t o r e c o r d s i g n i f i c a n t developmental h i s t o r y i n c i d e n t s and was admi n i s t e r e d t o both the t a r g e t and comparison groups. The form i s composed of ques t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h the s u b j e c t ' s : f a m i l y background, i n c i d e n t s d u r i n g pregnancy and b i r t h , developmental m i l e s t o n e s , i l l n e s s e s , i n j u r i e s , present p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n t e r e s t s , and a c t i v i t i e s . The developmental h i s t o r y form i n i t s p r e s e n t format was designed by a school psychology graduate student as p a r t of the requirements f o r her graduate degree. T h i s form appears t o have face v a l i d i t y i n the content of the items i n r e l a t i o n t o the previous s t u d i e s . No r e s e a r c h was conducted i n t o the r e l i a b i l i t y of p a r e n t a l response or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of items which might have a i d e d r e s e a r c h such as t h i s . However, i t was f e l t t h a t whatever f a c t o r s (time i n t e r v a l , item i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , e t c . ) were a f f e c t i n g the q u a l i t y of c o l l e c t e d data, they would work e q u a l l y f o r a l l respondents without f a v o r i n g e i t h e r sample. The developmental h i s t o r i e s of the t a r g e t sample, or re a d i n g delayed group, were a l r e a d y completed and f i l e d i n the Ed u c a t i o n C l i n i c . For the comparison sample, o r s u c c e s s f u l r e a d i n g group, the form was m o d i f i e d f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes by o m i t t i n g the reason f o r r e f e r r a l , s i n c e they were not r e f e r r e d , and i n the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l manner: ( i ) Family Background: I n c l u d e s : 10 items d e t a i l i n g the other members of the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y . Omitted: Are th e r e any other persons l i v i n g a t home? Are t h e r e any home problems ( m a r i t a l , f i n a n c i a l , e t c . ) t h a t may be c o n t r i b u t i n g t o the present d i f f i c u l t i e s of the c h i l d ? These were o b v i o u s l y i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l f o r the comparison group as they were s e l e c t e d because they were not e x p e r i e n c i n g any readi n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . Furthermore, the f a m i l y f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s was t o be d e r i v e d from the SES index used. ( i i ) P r e g n a n c y a n d B i r t h : I n c l u d e s : 14 items d e a l i n g with pregnancy and b i r t h c o m p l i c a t i o n s the mother experienced w i t h the c h i l d b e i n g r e p o r t e d on. Omitted: Apgar s c o r e s . Since the i n c l u s i o n of the Apgar scores was a re c e n t r e v i s i o n of the form, i t was not present on the m a j o r i t y o f the a l r e a d y completed forms f o r the t a r g e t sample. ( i i i ) D e v e l o p m e n t a l M i l e s t o n e s : I n c l u d e s : 12 items d e a l i n g w i t h any concerns about the c h i l d ' s e a r l y and present development. Omitted: none. ( i v ) H e a l t h H i s t o r y : I n c l u d e s : 16 items r e g a r d i n g any past o r c u r r e n t medical concerns about the c h i l d . Omitted: V i s i o n , h e a r i n g , and l a s t p h y s i c a l check-up. These p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i r c u r r e n t s t a t u s f o r d i a g n o s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o n l y . Since no assessments were t o be performed on the comparison group t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was not necessary. 31 B . B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Q u i c k I n d i v i d u a l E v a l u a t i o n T e s t ( B . C .  Q U I E T ) - Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u b t e s t ; T h i s t e s t was used t o measure the performance v a r i a b l e of r e a d i n g progress s i n c e i t was wi d e l y used among the s c h o o l psychology students at the U.B.C. c l i n i c . Furthermore, use of the B.C. QUIET ensured t h a t the measure of r e a d i n g achievement f i t t e d the samples s e l e c t e d f o r the study. T h i s was t o a l l e v i a t e one of the d i f f i c u l t i e s c i t e d i n the p r e v i o u s chapter of u s i n g instruments which were not s t a n d a r d i z e d on comparable p o p u l a t i o n s . The B.C. QUIET i s composed of f o u r s u b t e s t s : s p e l l i n g , math, word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and passage comprehension. S i n c e the composite t e s t score r e f l e c t s o v e r a l l normative academic achievement, the word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u b t e s t was chosen as the more acc u r a t e measure of a c q u i r e d r e a d i n g s k i l l s . T h i s d e c i s i o n was based on the r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h which s t a t e s t h a t the a c q u i s i t i o n of s i g h t words i s perhaps one of the most complex l e a r n i n g tasks i n v o l v i n g not o n l y a minimum of 35 meaningful r e p e t i t i o n s (Betts 1960) but a l s o v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , phonetic knowledge, memory, and comprehension t o v a r y i n g degrees. The word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u b t e s t c o n s i s t s of 91 words which were randomly s e l e c t e d from the Ginn 720 r e a d i n g s e r i e s . T h i s s e r i e s was the most popular of the two recommended by the B.C. M i n i s t r y of Educat i o n a t the time of t h i s r e s e a r c h . The norming sample c o n s i s t e d of 1400 B.C. school c h i l d r e n from grades one t o seven. S p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y was conducted at the grade three l e v e l r e s u l t i n g i n a Spearman-Brown c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .97. C. System Of M u l t i c u l t u r a l P l u r a l i s t i c Assessment (SOMPA);  Parent Int e r v i e w Guide Jane Mercer (1978) developed the SOMPA as a means of performing a more comprehensive psycho-educational assessment which accounted f o r a d d i t i o n a l s u b j e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s beyond academic and p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s c o r e s . Other v a r i a b l e s accounted f o r i n c l u d e d : p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (height, weight), n e u r o l o g i c a l ( p h y s i c a l d e x t e r i t y t a s k s ) , medical ( v i s i o n , h e a r i n g ) , and s o c i o c u l t u r a l s c a l e s ( f a m i l y s i z e , f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , socioeconomic s t a t u s , and urban a c c u l t u r a l i z a t i o n ) . The component of the s o c i o c u l t u r a l s c a l e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h was the socioeconomic s t a t u s which i n c l u d e d t h r e e q u e s t i o n s : a) Do the wages earned by the head of the household p r o v i d e most of the f a m i l y income? b) Occupation of the head of the household? c) Does the f a m i l y depend on p u b l i c funds f o r support? The second q u e s t i o n r a t e d the occupation of the head of the household based on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c a l e . T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n u s e f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g the socio-economic s t a t u s of the f a m i l y . The t e n p o i n t s c a l e ranged from 0 f o r unemployed or w e l f a r e r e c i p i e n t t o 9 f o r s k i l l e d managers or higher l e v e l p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Mercer adopted t h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme from the Duncan Socioeconomic Index (1961). The s o c i o c u l t u r a l s c a l e was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h o b t a i n e d WISC-R scores (n= 1580): Subtests C o r r e l a t i o n Variance V e r b a l R=.60 36.0 Performance R=.57 32.5 F u l l S c a l e R=.62 38.4 Performance V a r i a b l e The performance v a r i a b l e f o r t h i s study was d e f i n e d as the c h i l d ' s r e a d i n g performance a t the time the developmental h i s t o r y form was completed. The c l i n i c f i l e s were reviewed f o r c h i l d r e n who have been a d m i n i s t e r e d the B.C. QUIET word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u b t e s t . Those who had obt a i n e d scores a t l e a s t one standard d e v i a t i o n below the expected norm were co n s i d e r e d t o be r e a d i n g d e l a y e d . These c h i l d r e n ' s converted scores were below the 16th p e r c e n t i l e rank. T h i s i s the g e n e r a l l y accepted 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 e f i n i t i o n of below average performance. Antecedent V a r i a b l e s The antecedent v a r i a b l e s f o r t h i s study were d e f i n e d as the r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s i n the c h i l d ' s developmental h i s t o r y . The q u a n t i t y and nature of these p o s s i b l y adverse i n c i d e n t s were analyzed both q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i t a t i v e l y t o 34 determine i f they were s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s t o delayed progress i n r e a d i n g . P o p u l a t i o n and Samples The Target Sample: Subjects i n the t a r g e t sample had a minimum obtained F u l l S c a l e or Composite IQ of 90 as measured by the WISC-R, or as measured by the S t a n f o r d B i n e t : 4th E d i t i o n . T h i s ensured t h a t the t a r g e t sample matched the comparison sample i n a t l e a s t a g l o b a l measure of i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g , i n terms of sample means. The i n t e n t of t h i s c o n t r o l was t o ensure t h a t any d i f f e r e n c e s found between the the two groups was not due t o any g e n e r a l l y low c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of the t a r g e t group, s i n c e the purpose of t h i s study was not t o compare educably m e n t a l l y handicapped (EMH) c h i l d r e n w i t h s u c c e s s f u l r e a d e r s . A l l r e f e r r a l s on f i l e from the l a s t t hree years were co n s i d e r e d f o r t h i s study. While some p o s s i b l e s u b j e c t s were found t o meet the aforementioned t e s t score c r i t e r i a , t h e i r f i l e s were not complete w i t h developmental h i s t o r i e s . Upon f i n a l examination, i t was found t h a t the Education C l i n i c c o n t a i n e d r e c o r d s on 35 c h i l d r e n who's scores on the B.C. QUIET Word I d e n t i f i c a t i o n s u b t e s t f e l l a t l e a s t one standard d e v i a t i o n below the norm and whose f i l e s were complete. These c h i l d r e n formed the t a r g e t sample of r e a d i n g d e l a y e d students. S i n c e these c h i l d r e n s ' completed developmental h i s t o r i e s were contained i n the f i l e s , data c o l l e c t i o n was immediate. C h i l d r e n r e f e r r e d to the Education C l i n i c f o r academic d i f f i c u l t i e s came from not o n l y v a r i e d socio-economic backgrounds but, a l s o a wide geographic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p r o v i n c e of B.C.. Thus, the t a r g e t sample c o n t a i n e d a s u f f i c i e n t mix of school d i s t r i c t s and t h e i r r e a d i n g programmes t o be c o n s i d e r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of c h i l d r e n i n B.C. c o n s i d e r e d t o be r e a d i n g delayed. S u b j e c t ' s were a l s o noted t o come from school d i s t r i c t s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l i n p o p u l a t i o n (Campbell R i v e r , F o r t S t . John, etc.) t o the r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e r urban ones (Richmond, Vancouver, North Vancouver, e t c . ) . The Comparison Sample; The comparison sample was s e l e c t e d from the elementary s c h o o l s w i t h i n the P r i n c e George P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t #57. The P r i n c e George school d i s t r i c t i s one of B r i t i s h Columbia's l a r g e s t , g e o g r a p h i c a l l y , and a t the time of t h i s study had a student p o p u l a t i o n of about 19 000. The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o p u l a t i o n was t h a t the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c o n t a i n e d f a m i l i e s w i t h v a r i e d socio-economic backgrounds from which t o sample s i n c e SES i s one of the c r u c i a l c o n t r o l s which made t h i s study more i n n o v a t i v e than any of those p r e v i o u s l y attempted. S e l e c t e d c l a s s l i s t s were c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y e d i t e d w i t h the t e a c h e r s , removing students suspected of lower than 36 average r e a d i n g achievement. I t was f e l t t h a t the accuracy of teacher e s t i m a t i o n of student r e a d i n g a b i l i t y was w e l l documented and thus, no formal t e s t i n g of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s was necessary. References t o s u p p o r t i v e l i t e r a t u r e on the accuracy of teacher e s t i m a t i o n s are i n c l u d e d i n Appendix 4. No g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e measure was administered t o these c h i l d r e n s i n c e the r e s e a r c h i s f u l l y s u p p o r t i v e of a l i n k between ob t a i n e d IQ scores and g e n e r a l r e a d i n g performance. References t o s u p p o r t i v e l i t e r a t u r e i n t h i s a rea are p r o v i d e d i n Appendix 5. Based on t h e i r t e a c h e r s ' o b s e r v a t i o n of classroom r e a d i n g performance, i t was assumed t h a t these student's c u r r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g was a t l e a s t w i t h i n the average range. The comparison sample was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of s u c c e s s f u l r e a d i n g students from the P r i n c e George sc h o o l d i s t r i c t . The students i n t h i s s chool d i s t r i c t r e p resented a wide v a r i e t y of socio-economic s t a t u s , e t h n i c background, as w e l l as urban and s m a l l town s e t t i n g s (McKenzie, Valemont). S i n c e these schools were a l s o s u b j e c t t o the same c u r r i c u l u m and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g u i d e l i n e s as other school d i s t r i c t s i n the p r o v i n c e , they were c o n s i d e r e d t o be comparable t o the g e n e r a l s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n i n B.C.. C o n t r o l Of V a r i a b l e s Each t a r g e t s u b j e c t , i n t u r n , was t o have a comparison s u b j e c t matched with them based the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a . ( i ) Age: The s u b j e c t s i n both groups were matched f o r age w i t h the age range from 7.0 t o 11.11 y e a r s . T h i s was necessary s i n c e the grade placement alone d i d not ensure e q u a l i t y i n age. Students who have repeated a grade would have performed b e t t e r on the B.C. QUIET when compared t o peers who were one y e a r younger, and may have p o s s i b l y experienced a d d i t i o n a l h e a l t h h i s t o r y i n c i d e n t s . The s e l e c t e d age range had the a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s of e a s i e r matching of i n d i v i d u a l s . A sm a l l amount of leeway was t o be allowed when matching the t a r g e t students w i t h t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s ( i e . +/- 3.0 mos.). P a r e n t s ' memory of the s u b j e c t ' s e a r l y m e d i c a l h i s t o r y may have become l e s s accurate over time e s p e c i a l l y i f they had other c h i l d r e n i n the i n t e r i m and medical r e c o r d s were not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . Thus, the younger age range was t o p r o v i d e more ac c u r a t e memories on the p a r t of the parents f i l l i n g i n the form f o r both groups. ( i i ) Grade Placement; Each s u b j e c t i n the t a r g e t group was t o be matched w i t h a s u b j e c t i n the comparison sample w i t h the same grade placement. ( i i i ) Gender; Though the r a t i o of males t o females c o u l d not have been a n t i c i p a t e d b e f o r e data c o l l e c t i o n , the r a t i o from the t a r g e t sample was t o serve as the t a r g e t e d r a t i o f o r the comparison sample. ( i v ) Socio-Economic Status (SES); T h i s was r a t e d by c a t e g o r i z i n g the p a r e n t a l occupations a c c o r d i n g t o Jane Mercer's SOMPA Parent Interview Guide: S o c i o c u l t u r a l S c a l e (Appendix 3) . T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n scheme was used t o r a t e the occupations of both parents, i f present, on a t e n p o i n t s c a l e . O b t a i n i n g a r a t i n g f o r o n l y the head of the household as Mercer intended the s c a l e t o be used would not p r o v i d e as acc u r a t e an estimate of the f a m i l y ' s SES. By u s i n g both p a r e n t s ' r a t i n g s we can p r o v i d e a b e t t e r i n d i c a t o r of f a m i l y income and av o i d the n e c e s s i t y of d e c i d i n g which member was the head of the household. Since t h i s p o i n t v a l u e system appeared t o make random matching d i f f i c u l t i t seemed t h a t a one p o i n t "leeway" would have t o be g i v e n e i t h e r way. For example, i f one s u b j e c t ' s mother's SES was r a t e d as 4, he/she would have been matched w i t h a c o n t r o l who's mother's SES was 3, 4, or 5, and s i m i l a r l y f o r t h e i r f a t h e r s ' r a t e d SES. Data C o l l e c t i o n Target sample data were c o l l e c t e d from the U.B.C. Ed u c a t i o n C l i n i c f i l e s . The i n d i v i d u a l responses t o the items on the developmental h i s t o r i e s were n u m e r i c a l l y coded a c c o r d i n g t o the format i n Appendix 6. The numerical assignment of the responses has no e m p i r i c a l v a l u e , but r a t h e r , was f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n purposes o n l y . When data were c o l l e c t e d from the comparison sample, the p a r e n t a l responses on the developmental h i s t o r y forms were coded and r a t e d u s i n g the same format as was used f o r the t a r g e t sample. Data Analysis Table 3.1 Intended Areas of comparison Between Samples Target Sample Comparison Sample Family background <— Pregnancy and birth <— Develop, milestones <— Health history <— \ / 1 —> Family background 2 —> Pregnancy and birth 3 —> Develop, milestones 4 —> Health history \ / Once both s e t s of developmental h i s t o r i e s were c o l l e c t e d , some data were analyzed by conducting a two-t a i l e d independant t - t e s t . These analyses were c a r r i e d out whenever the responses were determined t o be on an i n t e r v a l o r r a t i o s c a l e , and d i s t r i b u t e d normally. When the responses were c l a s s i f i e d as being on an o r d i n a l or nominal s c a l e the a n a l y s i s was completed by Chi-square a n a l y s i s . T h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s was t o determine which of t h e r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s (analyses 1 t o 4 i n Table 3.1) i n the developmental h i s t o r i e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the r e a d i n g delayed and s u c c e s s f u l r e a d i n g samples. T h i s was intended t o r e s u l t i n a subset of i n c i d e n t s i n each area which appeared t o be the g r e a t e s t d i s c r i m i n a t o r s between the two samples and thus, answer the f i r s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . To answer our second q u e s t i o n , a l l s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t s would then be analyzed ( a n a l y s i s 5 i n Table 3.1) t o e s t a b l i s h which items i n the developmental h i s t o r y form pr o v i d e the b e s t p r e d i c t o r of r e a d i n g delay. Such an a n a l y s i s might i n v o l v e an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVA) i n which t o c o n s t r u c t an equation which c o u l d be used t o p r e d i c t l a t e r r e a d i n g achievement. Items t h a t d i d not reach a l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e c o u l d then be reviewed i n regards t o the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h t o determine i f the i t e m i s e i t h e r too ambiguous t o d e t e c t any measurable d i f f e r e n c e and r e q u i r e d m o d i f i c a t i o n or was not worth r e t e n t i o n . T h i s second procedure would a l l o w us t o answer the t h i r d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n intended t o determine whether or not the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form i s d e t a i l e d and s e n s i t i v e enough t o use as a s c r e e n i n g instrument. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s a n a l y s i s may address the c l a i m s t h a t adverse developmental i n c i d e n t s p l a y a l e s s e r r o l e i n the academic development of slower l e a r n e r s than the e a r l y i n f a n c y environmental f a c t o r s (Samaroff 1977). Chapter 4 Research R e s u l t s T h i s chapter w i l l present the d e s c r i p t i v e and i n f e r e n t i a l data and a n a l y s i s f o r each of the f o u r s e c t i o n s of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d from the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y forms. Though every e f f o r t was made t o match the two samples by age, gender, and grade, uneven sample s i z e s were o b t a i n e d due to the incomplete response r a t e from parents i n the comparison sample. Non-response r a t e was t o be minimized by o b t a i n i n g consent from the parents p r i o r t o sending the forms. School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c o n t a c t e d parents which best f i t the l i s t of s u b j e c t c o n t r o l s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : age, gender, grade placement, and p a r e n t a l SES. Follow-up of those parents not responding would have proven d i f f i c u l t as the forms were not coded p r i o r t o sending them out and no names were t o appear on the forms t o assure anonymity. Thus, the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were based on a t a r g e t sample s i z e of 35 and a comparison sample s i z e of 28 except where otherwise noted. As comparison data were r e t u r n e d , i n i t i a l i n s p e c t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t the data c o l l e c t e d were p r i m a r i l y nominal or o r d i n a l . Thus, the chi-square t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n or independence and, where p o s s i b l e , the independent t - t e s t were used f o r data a n a l y s i s . As the number of these t - t e s t s and c h i - s q u a r e analyses i n c r e a s e d , i t became apparent t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d a p o s s i b l e i n f l a t i o n of alpha. Alpha, the p r o b a b i l i t y of making a Type I e r r o r , occurs when the n u l l h y p o t hesis i s r e j e c t e d when i t i s t r u e . Thus, some c o n s i d e r a t i o n was gi v e n t o the B o n f e r r o n i technique. However, i t was f e l t t h a t t h i s procedure, i n view of an e x p l o r a t o r y type of r e s e a r c h , would have made the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e very s t r i n g e n t . Family Background T h i s s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o p a r e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s i b l i n g background and other f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both samples as r e p o r t e d i n the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form. Table 4.1 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Group Subjects For Gender and Age Groups (Yrs.) Target Comparison Sub j e c t ' s Age Male Female Male Female 7.0- 7.5 0 1 1 1 7.6- 7.11 3 1 2 0 8.0- 8.5 4 0 2 0 8.6- 8.11 0 1 0 1 9.0- 9.5 5 1 4 1 9.6- 9.11 3 2 1 1 10.0-10.5 3 1 4 2 10.6-10.11 0 3 0 4 11.0-11.5 4 2 1 1 11.6-11.11 0 1 1 1 T o t a l : 22 13 16 12 Percent 62.9% 37.1% 57. 1% 42.9% Mean age: 9.33 y r s . 9. 86 y r s . Range: 7.0-11 .11 y r s . 7.0-11 .11 y r s . C h i square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e 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 gender r a t i o between the two samples ('X?(l)= .27; p> .05). As intended, t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the two samples was c o n t r o l l e d by c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n of c o n t r o l group s u b j e c t s though s u b j e c t matching c o u l d not be completed as had been o r i g i n a l l y designed. Table 4.2 Group Mean, Range, and Standard D e v i a t i o n (Grade) S t a t i s t i c Mean grade: Grade range: Standard d e v i a t i o n : Target Comparison 3.71 4.11 1 t o 6 1 t o 7 1.58 1.45 A n a l y s i s of the mean grade placement by t - t e s t r e s u l t e d i n the acceptance of the n u l l h ypothesis ( t 0 ( 6 1 ) = 1.05; p> .05), r e f l e c t i n g a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n terms of grade placement between the two samples a t the time the developmental h i s t o r y form was completed, agai n , d e s p i t e the absense of exact s u b j e c t matching. Ta b l e 4.3 Group Grade Retainment H i s t o r y Target Comparison Subject Repeated One grade 16 45.71% 0 0.00% More than one 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Though t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i d not provide any p r e d i c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n , i t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o note the h i g h percentage of r e t e n t i o n i n the t a r g e t sample d e s p i t e r e s e a r c h which i n d i c a t e d l i t t l e academic b e n e f i t f o r the r e t a i n e d c h i l d . R e t e n t i o n a l s o proved i n e f f e c t i v e f o r these t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s who continued t o experience r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s up t o the p o i n t of r e f e r r a l t o the E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c . Table 4.4 Group Frequencies and S t a t i s t i c s For P r e s c h o o l Attendance Target Comparison Chi-square Subject Attended K i n d e r g a r t e n 33 94.4% 28 100.0% *2(1)=1.65,p>.05 Nursery s c h o o l 14 40.0% 15 53.6% X 2 , (1) =1.15 ,p>. 05 Daycare 6 17.1% 2 7.1% PC 2, (1) =1.41 ,p>.05 A l l of above 4 11.4% 0 0.0% yj (1) =3 .40 ,p>. 05 The c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s presented i n the above t a b l e r e s u l t e d i n the acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis s u g g e s t i n g no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the p a t t e r n of p r e s c h o o l attendance between samples. T h i s r e s u l t suggested t h a t p a t t e r n s of e a r l y exposure t o academics were not a v a l i d p r e d i c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r t h i s sample of delayed r e a d e r s . T a b l e 4.5 Comparison of Target Group's P r e s c h o o l Attendance and Grade Retainment Target Sample Repeated a grade Attended: yes no Only daycare or nursery s c h o o l 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% K i n d e r g a r t e n 8 22 .9% 5 14 .3% K i n d e r g a r t e n 8 22 .9% 14 40 .0% and o t h e r No between group comparisons c o u l d have been made r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r e s c h o o l attendance and r e t e n t i o n i n grade as there were no comparison members r e p e a t i n g grades. However, u s i n g the bottom f o u r c e l l s of the t a b l e above, k i n d e r g a r t e n and k i n d e r g a r t e n and o t h e r , c h i square a n a l y s i s on t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r the t a r g e t sample r e s u l t e d i n a c c e p t i n g the n u l l h y p o thesis (X?(2)= 2.20; p> .05) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the r a t e of r e t e n t i o n f o r those s u b j e c t s who attended more than j u s t K i n d e r g a r t e n i n t h e i r p r e s c h o o l l i v e s . Parents of c h i l d r e n i n both samples showed the f o l l o w i n g p r o f i l e of e d u c a t i o n a l attainment: Table 4.6 Samples' P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l Background Target (n=33) Comparison (n=28) Grade attainment mother f a t h e r mother f a t h e r Completed grade 12 72 .7% 48 .5% 85.7% 82 .1% Completed grade 11 6 .1% 12 .1% 0.0% 3 .6% Completed grade 10 3 .0% 15 .2% 7.1% 10 .7% Less than grade 10 18 .2% 24 .2% 7.1% 3 .6% S p e c i f i c E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s 17 .14% 11 .43% 0.00% 10 .71% Chi square a n a l y s i s , t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a t t e r n s of p a t e r n a l (% 2(3) = 8.20; p<.05) grade attainment d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y across samples w h i l e the maternal 0^(3)- 5.83; p>.05) grade attainment d i d not. By i n s p e c t i o n the t a r g e t sample appeared t o have a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of mothers e x p e r i e n c i n g s p e c i f i c e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n c l u d i n g l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s , grade retainment, and slow l e a r n e r s . T h i s i n i t i a l l y i n c l u d e d incomplete s c h o o l c a r e e r s (see appendix 6: column 11) as r e p o r t e d on the form. However, t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was excluded f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s as incomplete c a r e e r s can r e s u l t from o t h e r f a c t o r s not r e l a t e d t o an i n a b i l i t y t o meet academic requirements (eg. m o t i v a t i o n a l , emotional f a c t o r s ) . Table 4.7 Comparison Across Groups of P a r e n t a l Mean Grade Achieved Parent Group N Mean St Dev. T-value P Mother Target 34 10.97 2.16 1.17 >.05 Mother Comp. 28 11.50 1.40 Father Target 34 10.45 2.11 3.02 <.005 Father Comp. 28 11.64 0.83 T - t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n maternal grade attainment between groups. However, the mean p a t e r n a l grade attainment was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n the t a r g e t sample. Table 4.8 Comparison of P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Target (n=35) Comparison (n=27) Father Father yes no yes no 7 6 0 0 yes 20.00% 17.14% 0.00% 0.00% Mother 8 14 2 26 no 22.86% 40.00% 7.14% 92.85% T o t a l number i n each sample wi t h one or both parents having experienced some e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , i n c l u d i n g not f i n i s h i n g high s c h o o l , was 60x.00% f o r the T a r g e t sample compared t o o n l y 28.57% f o r the Comparison sample. C h i square a n a l y s i s , goodness of f i t , r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis (mother ^ 2 ( \ j = 14.07; p< .005, f a t h e r tX?(l)= 11.68; p<.005). Thus, one concludes t h a t the number of t a r g e t s u b j e c t s whose parents experienced some e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the comparison sample. Table 4.9 D i s t r i b u t i o n of SOMPA S o c i o c u l t u r a l Ratings Between Groups Target Comparison Stand n score Mother Father Mother Father 0 0 3 1 1 1 4 0 1 2 2 14 2 8 1 3 2 12 2 5 4 0 3 1 2 5 3 6 8 10 6 4 1 3 2 7 4 3 1 2 8 4 4 2 3 9 0 0 1 0 score 3.94 4.15 4.18 4.54 . dev. 2.44 2.22 2.27 2.08 35 34 28 28 I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s area r e s u l t e d i n t - t e s t v a l u e s across samples f o r mother's (t(61)=0.403; p>.05) and f a t h e r ' s (t(60)=0.712; p> .05). These mean va l u e s f o r s o c i o -economic s t a t u s based on p a r e n t a l occupation r e s u l t e d i n the acceptance of the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . Thus, we can assume t h a t t h e r e probably i s no d i f f e r e n c e between samples and, t h e r e f o r e , e f f o r t s t o c o n t r o l f o r SES across samples, based on SOMPA r a t i n g s , were s u c c e s s f u l . Table 4.10 Comparison Between Groups of P a r e n t a l E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s and Health H i s t o r y Problems Health Problems Target (n=56) Comparison (n=70) yes no yes no yes 6 22 3 3 Educ. 11.43% 26.04% 5.71% 37.14% D i f f i c u l t i e s no 4 38 1 49 2.85% 60.00% 8.57% 48.57% The data presented above i n d i c a t e s the number of mothers and f a t h e r s i n each sample i n r e s p e c t t o t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e of h e a l t h problems and/or e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s area r e s u l t e d i n these v a l u e s : t a r g e t group: ^ 2 ( 1 ) = 16.0 p< .01 and comparison group: ^ 2 ( 1 ) = 26.4 p< .01. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis suggesting t h a t t h e r e appeared t o a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the p a t t e r n s of p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n a l and h e a l t h h i s t o r y problems f o r both samples. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n does not appear t o c o n t r i b u t e t o the l i s t of p o s s i b l e e a r l y i n d i c a t o r s of r e a d i n g d e l a y as i t appears t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both samples. However, i t may be u s e f u l when d i s c u s s i n g the h e a l t h h i s t o r y s e c t i o n l a t e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . Table 4.11 Other Reported Family Background C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Subject Has: Target Comparison "X 2(2) One s i b l i n g 33 94 .3% 24 85. 7% 6.76 p<. 05 Two s i b l i n g s 19 54 .3% 11 39. 3% 21.16 p<. 05 3 or more s i b l i n g s 8 22 .9% 1 3. 6% 36.00 p<. 05 One s i b l i n g w i t h educ. d i f f i c u l t i e s 10 28 .6% 2 7. 1% 38.44 p<. 05 Two s i b l i n g s w i t h educ. d i f f i c u l t i e s 3 8 .6% 0 0. 0% 6.76 p<. 05 More than 2 s i b l i n g s with e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s 1 3 .0% 0 0. 0% 0.71 p>. 05 S i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s 10 28 .6% 2 7. 1% 44.44 p<. 05 Other language spoken a t home 4 11 .4% 0 0. 0% 12.64 p<. 05 One of the most wi d e l y accepted c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c h i l d r e n e x p e r i e n c i n g e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s having s i b l i n g s w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s was i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . Chi-square a n a l y s i s , t e s t of independence, suggested a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e across samples r e g a r d i n g the number of s i b l i n g s i n the f a m i l y u n i t s . U t i l i z i n g o n l y those s u b j e c t s w i t h s i b l i n g s , i n v e s t i g a t i o n of r e p o r t e d s i b l i n g e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a cross groups was then conducted, again u t i l i z i n g C h i square. The ob t a i n e d v a l u e s r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis which suggested a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e across samples i n the p a t t e r n s of s i b l i n g e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . A l s o i n t h i s r e p o r t e d f a m i l y background, C h i square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s i n the t a r g e t sample than i n the comparison sample. T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c has probably r e s u l t e d i n the p r e v i o u s l y noted hig h e r i n c i d e n c e of daycare attendance f o r the t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s . L a s t l y from t a b l e 4.11, C h i square a n a l y s i s a l s o suggested t h a t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of r e p o r t e d second languages i n the homes of the t a r g e t sample. T h i s b r i n g s up the p o s s i b i l i t y of E n g l i s h as a second language (ESL) i n t e r f e r e n c e with the a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g s k i l l s i n E n g l i s h . R e s u l t s i n t h i s s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t e f f o r t s t o c o n t r o l f o r the s u b j e c t ' s age, gender, grade placement, and socio-economic s t a t u s were e f f e c t i v e d e s p i t e the d i f f e r e n c e i n sample numbers. Thus, the lower response r a t e f o r the c o n t r o l sample d i d not a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t the intended c o n t r o l sample c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the two groups can be c o n s i d e r e d t o be e q u i v a l e n t f o r the purposes of t h i s r e s e a r c h . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were noted i n the lower p a t e r n a l grade attainment, higher number of s i b l i n g s i n f a m i l y u n i t , h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of s i b l i n g and p a t e r n a l e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s , second languages i n the home, and daycare attendance r e p o r t e d f o r the t a r g e t sample. Pregnancy and B i r t h T h i s s e c t i o n presents the d e t a i l s of the r e p o r t e d p r e -and neonatal i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d f o r both samples on the p r e s e n t developmental h i s t o r y form. 53 Table 4.12 Medical S u p e r v i s i o n Reported Across Samples Number of Doctor V i s i t s Target (n=34) Comparison (n=27) Chi square a n a l y s i s of the p a t t e r n s of d o c t o r s u p e r v i s i o n i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (%^(3)= 1.32; p> .05) between the two samples. While the n u l l h ypothesis was accepted, c a u t i o n i s recommended when i n t e r p r e t i n g these r e s u l t s as the term " r e g u l a r l y " c o u l d o n l y be d e f i n e d as more than t h r e e v i s i t s . The a c t u a l numbers and purposes f o r these v i s i t s were not d i r e c t l y expanded on i n the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form. The second q u e s t i o n requested i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g any p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s the mother experienced w h i l e pregnant. Both samples r e p o r t e d a wide v a r i e t y of d e t r i m e n t a l i n c i d e n t s i n c l u d i n g : p l a c e n t a f a i l u r e , c h i c k e n pox, a l l e r g i e s , a l c o h o l , i n f e c t i o n s , and measles. D i f f e r i n g i n c i d e n c e r a t e s of toxemia: f i v e i n the t a r g e t group (14.71%) and one i n the comparison group (3.70%), were a l s o noted. The o v e r a l l number of r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s of p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s were 32.35% f o r the t a r g e t group and 11.10% f o r the comparison. A n a l y s i s by i n s p e c t i o n r e v e a l e d almost t h r e e times as many t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s having experienced some k i n d of p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n than the comparison s u b j e c t s . Never Once Two or t h r e e R e g u l a r l y 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 14.29% 29 85.71% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 7.40% 25 92.59% Table 4.13 P a t t e r n of Doctor S u p e r v i s i o n i n R e l a t i o n t o P r e n a t a l Complications P r e n a t a l Complications Target Comparison Doctor v i s i t s yes no yes no 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 4 0 0 2-3 2.94% 11.76% 0.00% 0.00% 10 19 3 22 R e g u l a r l y 29.41% 55.88% 11.10% 81.48% There were no re p o r t e d occurances of fewer than two doc t o r v i s i t s r e p o r t e d f o r e i t h e r sample. However, remembering the nature of survey r e s e a r c h , t h e r e may have been some r e l u c t a n c e by a l l respondents t o r e p o r t poor medical s u p e r v i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o the present developmental h i s t o r y form, the l e n g t h of pregnancy was r e p o r t e d i n months. Whenever the respondent was able t o be more s p e c i f i c ( i . e . 9.5 months) t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was used i n computing the mean l e n g t h of pregnancy. The t a r g e t group mean of 8.97 months (n=34) was almost i d e n t i c a l t o the comparison group mean of 8.96 months (n=27). Thus, t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e p o r t e d d u r a t i o n of pregnancy between samples i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h i s does not appear t o be a r e l a t e d f a c t o r . Table 4.14 Comparison Across Groups with Respect t o Length of Labour Length of Labour (hours) 0 1-5 Target 1 14 4 5 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 Group Comparison 1 13 4 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 55-60 Mean (hrs.) Range Standard dev.* 13.93 £ Q(57)= 2.06 12.33 (n=30) 0 t o 56 6.59 (n=27) 0 t o 22 5.87 p< .025 * c a l c u l a t e d from a c t u a l r e p o r t e d data, not the grouped frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s shown. T - t e s t v a l u e s r e s u l t e d i n r e j e c t i n g the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s suggesting t h a t t h e r e probably was a d i f f e r e n c e between the samples' mean l e n g t h of l a b o u r . T h i s p e r i n a t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was not d i r e c t l y commented on p r e v i o u s l y i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e as a p o s s i b l e c a u s a l o r r e l a t e d f a c t o r of r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . Table 4.15 Types of B i r t h Reported f o r Sample S u b j e c t s Type of B i r t h Target (n=32) Comparison (n=27) N a t u r a l Ceasarean Induced High f o r c e p s Mid f o r c e p r o t a t i o n R e s u s c i t a t i o n used 17 7 4 3 0 0 53.13% 21.88% 12.50% 9.3% 0.00% 0.00% 19 5 1 2 1 1 70.37% 18.52% 3.70% 7.41% 3.70% 3.70% C h i square a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between samples re g a r d i n g the p a t t e r n of s u b j e c t s ' type of b i r t h ( * X ^ ( 4 ) = 6.95; p> .05). The number of induced l a b o u r s which some r e s e a r c h had p r e v i o u s l y l i n k e d w i t h speech d i s o r d e r s , was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n the t a r g e t sample. The use of f o r c e p s , a l l types combined f o r a n a l y s i s d i d not appear t o have d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s samples. Tab l e 4.16 Comparison Between Groups For Reported Birthweights B i r t h w e i g h t (grams) Target Comparison 2200-2499 0 2 2500-2799 3 2 2800-3099 4 1 3100-3399 6 6 3400-3699 11 3 3700-3999 6 8 4000-4299 2 5 4300-4599 1 0 4600-4899 0 0 Mean b i r t h weight 3403 (n=32) 3467 (n Standard d e v i a t i o n 434 541 Range 2500-4300 2400 To(57)= .496 P> T - t e s t v a l u e s r e s u l t e d i n the acceptance of the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between samples by b i r t h w e i g h t . Though t h i s appeared c o n t r a r y t o the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , i t o n l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t b i r t h w e i g h t was not r e l a t e d t o l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t sample w i t h both samples' ranges w e l l above t h a t commonly c o n s i d e r e d t o be low b i r t h w e i g h t . T h i s was c o n s i s t e n t with the p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s which i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between samples r e g a r d i n g l e n g t h of pregnancy. T a b l e 4 . 1 7 Other C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Reported f o r S u b j e c t ' s B i r t h Target (n= =34) Comparison (n=27) P l a c e d i n i n c u b a t o r 7 20. 00% 4 14.81% Mean number of days 3.86 3. 00 Other concerns d u r i n g b i r t h : j a u n d i c e 5 14. 71% 3 11.11% o t h e r : swallowed amneotic f l u i d , b l u e baby, blood t r a n s f u s i o n 3 8. 81% 3 11.11% T o t a l concerns 8 23. 52% 6 22.22% T o t a l of Pregnancy or B i r t h Concerns: 16 47. 06% 7 25.93% Though the above b i r t h i n g concerns do not appear t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t across samples, when combined w i t h those r e p o r t i n g pregnancy concerns, the p r o p o r t i o n of pregnancy o r b i r t h concerns r e p o r t e d f o r s u b j e c t s i n the t a r g e t sample was n o t i c e a b l y l a r g e r : T= 16 (47.1%), C= 7 (25.9%). T h i s suggested t h a t these pre- and p e r i n a t a l i n c i d e n t s c o u l d have been r e l a t e d t o l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s t a r g e t sample. In t h i s s e c t i o n , d i f f e r e n c e s were noted between samples i n the l o n g e r l e n g t h of labour and g r e a t e r number of concerns d u r i n g pregnancy or b i r t h f o r the t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s . Type of b i r t h and b i r t h w e i g h t were not noted t o have d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y across samples i n t h i s r e s e a r c h though they have been commented on i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Developmental Milestones T h i s s e c t i o n d e t a i l s the r e p o r t e d p o s t n a t a l i n c i d e n t s which were i n c l u d e d i n the developmental h i s t o r y form. When asked t o compare the s u b j e c t ' s r a t e of g e n e r a l development t o other f a m i l y members, the respondants r a t e d the s u b j e c t as i n d i c a t e d i n Table 4.18. Table 4.18 Reported General Rate of Development Target (n=34) Comparison (n=28) "X?-F a s t e r 5 14.28% 8 28.57% 18.15 p<.05 The same 18 54.29% 20 71.43% 32.26 p<.05 Slower 11 31.43% 0 0.00% 19.87 p<.05 C h i square a n a l y s i s across groups r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis (^^{2)= 11.36; p< .05) s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between samples i n t h e i r r e p o r t e d g e n e r a l r a t e of development. The most no t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t almost a t h i r d of the t a r g e t s u b j e c t s were r a t e d by t h e i r parents t o be g e n e r a l l y developmentally delayed i n comparison t o s i b l i n g s or peers w h i l e none of the comparison s u b j e c t s were r a t e d as slower. The percentage conversions showed twice the p r o p o r t i o n of comparison s u b j e c t s were r a t e d as g e n e r a l l y f a s t e r d e v e l o p i n g than those i n the t a r g e t sample. These r e s u l t s suggested a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n not only the r a t e of r e a d i n g p r o g r e s s , but i n the g e n e r a l r a t e of development across samples. Table 4.19 Comparison Between Rate of Development and P r e n a t a l Complications Across Groups Development Appeared Group F a s t e r Slower Same No p r e n a t a l T 2 5.7% 7 20.0% 15 42 .9% c o m p l i c a t i o n s C 8 28.6% 0 0.0% 14 50 .0% P r e n a t a l T 3 8.6% 4 11.4% 4 11 .4% c o m p l i c a t i o n s C 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 21 .4% C h i square a n a l y s i s of the above c h a r a c t e r i s t i c comparison i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r a t e s of development d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s samples f o r those e x p e r i e n c i n g p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s Cx 2(2)= 8.85; p<.025) but not f o r those who experienced none (?d 2(2) = 3.99; p>.05). By i n s p e c t i o n , the t a r g e t sample showed the h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of slower g e n e r a l development r e g a r d l e s s of the presence of p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s . By p r o p o r t i o n , almost a t h i r d of the t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s were r e p o r t e d as having a slower g e n e r a l r a t e of development w h i l e none of the comparison sample s u b j e c t s were r a t e d as slower. Furthermore, the t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s who d i d experience some p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s presented a more v a r i e d r a t e of g e n e r a l development than the comparison s u b j e c t s whose g e n e r a l development was r a t e d as the same as t h e i r peers. T a b l e 4.20 Nature of Concerns f o r Sub j e c t ' s Development Across Groups Target Comparison Feeding 4 11 .43% 3 10 .71% F i n e motor 6 17 .14% 1 3 .57% Gross motor 9 25 .71% 1 3 .57% Language development 8 22 .86% 0 0 .00% A r t i c u l a t i o n 13 37 .14% 1 3 .57% Memory 10 28 .57% 1 3 .57% Hearing 6 17 .14% 0 0 .00% V i s i o n 3 8 .57% 1 3 .57% P e r s o n a l s k i l l s 8 22 .86% 1 3 .57% S o c i a l s k i l l s 7 20 .00% 0 0 .00% Emotional s t a b i l i t y 17 48 .57% 6 21 .42% T o t a l no. wit h some develop, concerns: 30 85 .71% 14 50 .00% T h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t w hile no comparison s u b j e c t s were r e p o r t e d t o have language development, h e a r i n g , and s o c i a l s k i l l s concerns, these were r e p o r t e d f o r a l a r g e percentage of the t a r g e t sample. C h i square a n a l y s i s (^{l) 13.45 p< .05) i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the t o t a l number s u b j e c t ' s w i t h some developmental concerns across samples. T a b l e 4.21 Mean Number of Developmental H i s t o r y Concerns Across Samples Target Comparison E a r l y developmental concerns: 1.26 0.46 Present develop, concerns: 0.63 0.07 E a r l y and present develop. concerns: 0.63 0.00 Mean number of developmental concerns per sample s u b j e c t : 2.66 0.54 T - t e s t a n a l y s i s between samples comparing the mean number of developmental concerns r e s u l t e d i n the r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l h ypothesis (# 0(61)= 6.14; p< .005). These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number of developmental concerns per su b j e c t expressed f o r the t a r g e t sample than f o r those i n the comparison sample. By i n s p e c t i o n , the t a b l e s i n d i c a t e d a higher number of concerns f o r the t a r g e t sample i n a l l areas i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n of the present developmental h i s t o r y form. However, these r e s u l t s d i d not len d themselves t o f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n as t o which may have a higher p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . In t h i s s e c t i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were noted across groups i n the slower g e n e r a l r a t e of development and higher number of s p e c i f i c developmental concerns f o r the t a r g e t sample i n t h e i r e a r l y and present development i n c l u d i n g : language, a r t i c u l a t i o n , memory, he a r i n g , s o c i a l s k i l l s , e t c . . Furthermore, the r e p o r t e d slower g e n e r a l r a t e of development d i d not appear t o be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s . H ealth H i s t o r y R e s u l t s p resented i n t h i s s e c t i o n d e t a i l the s u b j e c t s ' r e p o r t e d h i s t o r y of i l l n e s s e s and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y up t o the p o i n t of completion of the developmental h i s t o r y form. T a b l e 4.22 Comparison of S p e c i f i c I l l n e s s e s A c r o s s Groups Target Comparison Measles 12 34. ,29% 9 32 .14% Mumps 2 5. ,71% 3 10 .71% Pneumonia 3 8. .57% 2 7 .14% High temperatures 9 25. .71% 9 32 .14% Convulsions 0 0. .00% 1 3 .57% Other: T.B.,chicken p o x , t o n s i l -i t i s , r h e u m a t i c fever,headaches, b r o n c h i t i s , S c h o e l e i n Hanenoch syndrome,whooping cough. 8 22. .86% 13 46 .43% Head i n j u r y 4 11. .43% 3 10 .71% I n f e c t i o n s 12 34. .29% 5 17 .86% Heart 3 8. .57% 1 3 .57% Stomach 0 0. .00% 2 7 .14% Teeth 2 5. .71% 0 0 .00% A l l e r g i e s 6 17. .14% 7 25 .00% E p i l e p s y 0 0. .00% 0 0 .00% Percent of Subjects with H e a l t h H i s t o r y Concerns: (n =35) 88, .57% (n=28) 92 .86% By i n s p e c t i o n , there were lower r a t e s of "other" i l l n e s s e s and a gr e a t e r number of i n f e c t i o n s r e p o r t e d f o r the t a r g e t sample. Since t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r t o t a l number of samples' s u b j e c t s r e p o r t i n g i l l n e s s e s , the s e v e r i t y of the i l l n e s s e s was analyzed: T a b l e 4.23 Comparison of the Reported S e v e r i t y of Hea l t h Concerns Across Samples S e v e r i t y Target Comparison mean mean M i l d Health Concerns .400 .536 Moderate Health Concerns .486 .750 Severe Health Concerns .171 .464 Mean No. of Health H i s t o r y Concerns Per Subject: 1.97 2.00 By i n s p e c t i o n , t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between samples r e g a r d i n g the r e p o r t e d mean number of h e a l t h h i s t o r y concerns. The degree of the h e a l t h concerns f o r each sample showed the f o l l o w i n g p r o f i l e (Table 4.24) f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s i n the h e a l t h h i s t o r y and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y c a t e gory. Table 4.24 Comparison of Number of Subjects With H e a l t h H i s t o r y and P h y s i c a l I n j u r i e s Across Samples S e v e r i t y Area Group M i l d Moderate Severe Health T 12 34.3% 19 54.3% 4 11.4% h i s t o r y C 17 60.7% 19 67.9% 8 28.6% P h y s i c a l T 16 45.7% 6 17.1% 6 17.1% i n j u r y C 3 10.7% 5 17.1% 4 14.3% Chi square a n a l y s i s , t e s t of independence, acro s s samples' h e a l t h h i s t o r y (%2(2)=0.81; p>.05) and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y (% 2(2)= 5.20; p>.05) p r o f i l e s r e s u l t e d i n a c c e p t i n g the n u l l h y p o thesis . Thus, th e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the t a r g e t and comparison samples' p r o p o r t i o n s of r e p o r t e d h e a l t h h i s t o r y and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y i n c i d e n t s . A n a l y s i s i n t h i s area i n d i c a t e d t h a t i l l n e s s and p h y s i c a l i n j u r y does not appear t o account f o r any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between these two samples. Chapter 5 T h i s chapter w i l l d i s c u s s some of the r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h i n terms of i t s a b i l i t y t o answer the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . D i s c u s s i o n T h i s r e s e a r c h remained l i m i t e d i n i t s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s due t o the nature of the data c o l l e c t e d . By o b t a i n i n g more q u a n t i t a t i v e data p r e d i c t i v e s t a t i s t i c s c o u l d have allowed f o r an e x p l o r a t i o n of the r e s u l t s i n terms of p r e d i c t i v e s t a t i s t i c s . However, data c o l l e c t i o n procedures f o r the comparison sample were l i m i t e d t o the format used on the t a r g e t sample s u b j e c t s upon r e f e r r a l t o the c l i n i c . Thus, most data were r e p o r t e d i n a more q u a l i t a t i v e manner which was dependant on p a r e n t a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and judgements as they completed the developmental h i s t o r y form. I t was f e l t t h a t u t i l i z i n g the q u a n t i t a t i v e data a v a i l a b l e t o perform p r e d i c t i v e s t a t i s t i c s may have been m i s l e a d i n g as they formed the m i n o r i t y of items responded t o i n each s e c t i o n . ( i ) Which one of the f o u r s e c t i o n s of developmental h i s t o r i e s p r o v i d e s the best p r e d i c t o r of r e a d i n g d e l a y : f a m i l y background, pregnancy and b i r t h , developmental m i l e s t o n e s , or h e a l t h h i s t o r y ? T h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was t o determine which of the f o u r s e c t i o n s of the developmental h i s t o r y form p r o v i d e d the b e s t p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d i n g d e l a y . In order t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which reached a s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e are l i s t e d below wi t h the s u p p o r t i n g r e s e a r c h from the l i t e r a t u r e review. Target Sample Family Background: References lower p a t e r n a l grade Bee et al(1982) attainment Broman,Bien,& Shaughnessy(1985) Nickel,Bennett,& Lampson(1982) more p a r e n t a l Nickel,Bennett,& Lampson(1982) e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s A.C. Smith(1972) more s i b l i n g s i n Mercer (1978) f a m i l y u n i t more s i b l i n g e d u c a t i o n a l Hunter & Johnson(1971) d i f f i c u l t i e s h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of Cohen,Sigman,Parmelee,& s i n g l e parent backgrounds Beckwith(1982) more daycare and nursery school attendance more second languages at home The f a m i l y background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t a r g e t sample d i d s u b s t a n t i a t e some of the p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s of f a m i l i a l e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . Furthermore, i f s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s can be c o n s i d e r e d t o be a symptom of f a m i l y d y s f u n c t i o n , t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c can a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d s u b s t a n t i a t i o n of previous r e s e a r c h . Jane Mercer's i n c l u s i o n of f a m i l y s i z e and s t r u c t u r e q u e s t i o n s i n her SOMPA parent i n t e r v i e w schedule are supported by t h i s r e s e a r c h as having some p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n t o l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y . The on l y other s i g n i f i c a n t f a m i l i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the delayed reader's background was the hi g h e r r a t e of daycare and nursery s c h o o l attendance. T h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was not i n i t i a l l y s u r p r i s i n g i n l i g h t of the hi g h e r i n c i d e n c e of s i n g l e parent f a m i l i e s . However, o n l y 3 of the 10 s i n g l e parent comparison f a m i l i e s r e p o r t e d l y used daycare f a c i l i t i e s which i s the same o v e r a l l t a r g e t sample r a t i o . T arget Sample Pregnancy and B i r t h : References h) experienced a longer induced l a b o u r : Smith & l e n g t h of labour Wilborn(1977), C o l l e t t i ( 1 9 7 9 ) i ) g r e a t e r number of concerns H e r t z i g ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Denhoff, d u r i n g b i r t h Hainsworth & Hainsworth(1972) Broman,Bien,SShaughnessy(1985) j) g r e a t e r number of concerns A.C. Smith e t a l ( 1 9 7 2 ) , Kawi & d u r i n g pregnancy Pasamanick(1958), Smith & Wilburn(1977) T h i s s e c t i o n provided support f o r much of the p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h which suggested t h a t adverse i n c i d e n t s d u r i n g pregnancy and b i r t h can l e a d t o p o s s i b l e CNS a d v e r s i t y which may manifest i t s e l f i n the form of i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the a c q u i s i t i o n of read i n g s k i l l s . The c o n t e n t i o n s of Samaroff and Kagan t h a t these i n c i d e n t s are more p r e v a l e n t i n the low SES p o p u l a t i o n are c h a l l e n g e d by these r e s u l t s which have c o n t r o l l e d f o r SES. T a r g e t S a m p l e D e v e l o p m e n t a l M i l e s t o n e s : R e f e r e n c e s k) g e n e r a l l y slower r a t e of C o l l e t t i ( 1 9 7 2 ) development which does not appear r e l a t e d t o p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s 1) higher number of r e p o r t e d V e l l u t i n o ( 1 9 7 8 ) , L y l e ( 1 9 7 0 ) developmental concerns R e s u l t s i n t h i s s e c t i o n suggested t h a t whatever c a u s a l f a c t o r s were i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the t a r g e t s u b j e c t s ' a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a d i n g r e l a t e d s k i l l s may a l s o be i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e i r g e n e r a l r a t e of development. T h i s was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R i c h a r d earner's statement t h a t r e a d i n g r e q u i r e d the i n t e g r a t i o n of a complex a r r a y of p h y s i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s . C e r t a i n l y i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t these delayed o r impaired f u n c t i o n s would be noted i n the c h i l d ' s o t h e r observable behaviours. T a r g e t S a m p l e H e a l t h H i s t o r y : No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . No p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h found t h i s area t o be s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of severe head i n j u r y . T h i s r e s e a r c h a l s o d i d not r e v e a l a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of r e p o r t e d p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s and i l l n e s s e s . However, a more q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of each occurance by a h e a l t h c a r e p r o f e s s i o n a l might y e t provide u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes. 68 T h i s r e s e a r c h has shown the aforementioned developmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the readi n g delayed t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and many have been noted t o have some r e l a t i o n w i t h l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n pre v i o u s r e s e a r c h . The f a m i l y background, pregnancy and b i r t h s e c t i o n s d i d appear t o p r o v i d e the e a r l i e s t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g i n c i d e n t s which may be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r e a r l i e s t i n t e r v e n t i o n . However, these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were few and not t o t a l l y c o n c l u s i v e . Furthermore, s i g n i f i c a n t developmental i n c i d e n c e s , v a l u a b l e t o the assessment p r o c e s s , have been shown t o appear i n a l l s e c t i o n s , except the h e a l t h h i s t o r y , and should be co n s i d e r e d as f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o some aspect of school success. ( i i ) Which of the items q u a n t i f i e d i n the developmental h i s t o r y form are the most s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of r e a d i n g delay? T h i s q u e s t i o n which was intended t o a s c e r t a i n which items i n the developmental h i s t o r y were the most s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of readi n g d e l a y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the lower l e v e l , n o n - m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s used i n t h i s r e s e a r c h d i d not a l l o w one t o adequately attempt t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . Thus, no s p e c u l a t i o n or d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d can be o f f e r e d . Future r e s e a r c h e r s may wish t o r e p l i c a t e t h i s r e s e a r c h w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e m o d i f i c a t i o n s of r e s e a r c h method and data a n a l y s i s i n order t o address t h i s q u e s t i o n adequately. ( m ) Is the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form d e t a i l e d and s e n s i t i v e enough t o be used as a scre e n i n g instrument? T h i s q u e s t i o n was intended t o determine whether the c u r r e n t developmental h i s t o r y form was d e t a i l e d and s e n s i t i v e enough t o be used as a s c r e e n i n g instrument t o i d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n who might experience l a t e r r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y . The r e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h can only conclude t h a t the present form conti n u e s t o serve the purpose of g a t h e r i n g v a l u a b l e background i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b j e c t s r e f e r r e d t o the E d u c a t i o n C l i n i c . However, the use of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be l i m i t e d t o s p e c u l a t i o n on the c l i n i c i a n s ' p a r t as t o the extent t o which these r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s have i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r r e a d i n g achievement. While some r e p o r t e d background i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l always be d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y , some m o d i f i c a t i o n s are suggested i n order t o i n c r e a s e the s t r e n g t h of any hypothesis drawn from the developmental h i s t o r y forms and a i d f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h which may occur i n t h i s a r ea. Summary R e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n which i n d i c a t e d some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s across these samples of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l readers i n some r e p o r t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r developmental h i s t o r y . The nature of these r e s u l t s does r e i n f o r c e c a u t i o n i n the f u t u r e use of the developmental h i s t o r y form and i n the a n a l y s i s of p a r e n t a l responses f o r d i a g n o s t i c purposes. T h i s r e s e a r c h has noted areas of p o s s i b l e improvement f o r the form which may a s s i s t f u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s i n p r o v i d i n g support t o any proposed a s s o c i a t i o n drawn as t o the c a u s a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o a c h i l d ' s observed reading d i f f i c u l t i e s . 71 Recommendations For F u r t h e r Research 1) Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n may be g i v e n t o u t i l i z i n g a developmental h i s t o r y form which has respondents r e p l y i n g t o some ques t i o n s i n the form of a L i k e r t s c a l e which would pr o v i d e q u a s i - i n t e r v a l data s u i t a b l e f o r higher l e v e l p r e d i c t i v e s t a t i s t i c s . The suggested r e v i s i o n of the developmental h i s t o r y form i n Appendix 7 i n c l u d e s t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as w e l l as a q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of other que s t i o n s such as the number of d o c t o r v i s i t s . 2) By q u a n t i f y i n g some responses, f u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s may a l s o develop c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems or c u t - o f f s c o r e s f o r each of the f o u r areas of the developmental h i s t o r y . T h i s would a l l o w the c l i n i c i a n s t o have some normed r e f e r e n c e s from which t o support any f u t u r e hypothesis about the r e l a t i o n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a s u b j e c t ' s r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . Again, as s t a t e d i n chapter 2, t h i s may l e a d t o e a r l i e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of "at r i s k " c h i l d r e n and the development of e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s f o r them. A suggested format f o r r e p o r t i n g the developmental h i s t o r i e s i s p r o v i d e d i n Appendix 7. 3) While t h i s amended format may prove u s e f u l i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h and d i a g n o s i s , c a u t i o n i s always recommended. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may never be a l l c o n c l u s i v e and the e a r l i e s t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of delayed readers w i l l have t o u t i l i z e o t h e r d i a g n o s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l . B i b l i o g r a p h y Archer, P e t e r and M a r t i n , Micheal (1980). The i n f l u e n c e of  p u p i l ' s s o c i a l c l a s s on teacher's r a t i n g s of r e a d i n g  attainment. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 195973) Archer, P h i l i p and Sewall, Micheal (1973). Compensatory  p r e k i n d e r g a r t e n e r s ' IQ g a i n c o r r e l a t e d with t h i r d grade  read i n g achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 080179) Badian, N a t h l i e A. (1981). Re c a t e g o r i z e d WISC-R scores of d i s a b l e d and adequate r e a d e r s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  Research , 75(2), 109-114. Balow, B., Rubin, R.A., and Rosin, M.J. (1974). P e r i n a t a l  events as p r e c u r s e r s of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y , M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, U.S. Department of Health and Welfare, N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of Education. Bee, H.L., Barnard, K.E., Eyres, S.J., Gray, C.A., Hammond, M.A., S p i e t z , A.L., Snydes, D., and C l a r k e , B. (1982). P r e d i c t i o n of I.Q. and language s k i l l s from p e r i n a t a l s t a t u s , c h i l d performance, f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and mother-infant i n t e r a c t i o n . C h i l d Development, 53(5), 1134- 1156. Benton, A.L. (1975). In S a t t l e r , J.M. Assessment of  c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e and s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s (p.394). Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon, 1982. B e t t s , E.A. (1960). Handbook on c o r r e c t i v e r e a d i n g f o r the  American s e r i e s f o r slow l e a r n e r s and r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s . E v i s t o n , 111.: Harper and Row. Broman, S., Bien, E., & Shaughnessy, P. (1985). Low  a c h i e v i n g c h i l d r e n : The f i r s t seven y e a r s . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s . Carner, R i c h a r d (1981). V a r i a b l e s i n re a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of Research and Development i n Education, .14(4), 24-34. Chadwick, 0., R u t t e r , M., Thompson, J . , and S h a f f e r , D. (1981). I n t e l l e c t u a l performance and readi n g s k i l l s a f t e r l o c a l i z e d head i n j u r y i n c h i l d h o o d . J o u r n a l of C h i l d  Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y and A l l i e d D i s c i p l i n e s , 22(2), 117-139. Cohen, S.E., Sigman, M., Parmelee, A.H., and Beckwith, L. (1982). P e r i n a t a l r i s k and developmental outcome i n preterm i n f a n t s , C h i l d Development, 6(4), 334-339. C o l l e t t i , L.F. (1979). R e l a t i o n s h i p between pregnancy and b i r t h c o m p l i c a t i o n s and l a t e r development of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . J o u r n a l of Le a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 12(10) , 659-663. C o l l i g a n , R.C. (1974). Psychometric d e f i c i t s r e l a t e d t o p e r i n a t a l s t r e s s . J o u r n a l of Le a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 2 ( 4 ) , 36-42. C o l l i n s , Tom R. (1974). The importance of assessment  instrument development. Durham,N.C.: Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e . (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 107729) DeHirsch, K., Jansky, J . , and Langford, W.S. (1966). Comparisons between prematurely and maturely born c h i l d r e n a t t h r e e age l e v e l s . American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , 36, 616-628. Denhoff, K., Hainsworth, P.K., and Hainsworth, M.L. (1972). The c h i l d a t r i s k f o r l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s : Can he be i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g the f i r s t year of l i f e ? C l i n i c a l  P e d i a t r i c s , 11, 164-170. Eisenb u r g , M a r j o r i e S. (1975). S t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t performance  as a f u n c t i o n of general r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . New J e r s e y : S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 107726) E l l i o t t , M u r i e l C. (1974). Teacher outcomes s t u d i e s : The  development of methods f o r o b t a i n i n g t e a c h e r estimates of  minimal and d e s i r e d student performance. Durham, N.C.: Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e . (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 107726) F r a n c i s - W i l l i a m s , J . (1976). E a r l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n l i k e l y t o have 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 : Report of a follow-up. Developmental Medicine and C h i l d  Neurology, 18(1), 71-77. Fuentes, Edward J . and Wisenbaker, Joseph M. (1979). The use  of t e acher r a t i n g of o r a l E n g l i s h p r o f i c i e n c y as a c o v a r i a t e  i n the a n a l y s i s of reading s c o r e s . Durham,N.C.: Research T r i a n g l e I n s t i t u t e . (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 171790) H e r t z i g , M.E. (1981). N e u r o l o g i c a l " s o f t s i g n s " i n low-b i r t h w e i g h t c h i l d r e n . Developmental Medicine and C h i l d  Neurology, 23(6), 778-791. 75 Hoffman, Mary S. (1971). Early indications of learning problems. Academic Therapy, 1(1), 23-34. Hunt, J.V., Tooley, W.M., and Harvin, D. (1982). Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i n children with b i r t h weight less than 1 500 gm. Seminars i n Perinatology, 6(4), 280-287. Hunter, E.J., and Johnson, L.C. (1971). Developmental and psychological differences between readers and non-readers. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 4(10), 572-577. I l l i n o i s Inventory of Educational Progress (1980). Reading  c u r r i c u l a r analyses and teacher expectation r e s u l t s . (ERIC document Reproduction No. ED 191890) Jorgenson, Gerald W. (1975). An analysis of teacher judgements of reading l e v e l . American Educational Research  Journal, 12(1), 67-75. Kagan, Jerome, Eisenburg, L., and Talbot, N.B. (1971). Behavioural science i n ped i a t r i c medicine, P h i l i d e l p h i a : Saunders. Kawi, A.A., and Pasamanick, B.P. (1958). Association of factors of pregnancy with reading disorders i n childhood. Journal of the American Medical Association, 166, 1420-1423. Lyle, J.G. (1970). Certain antenatal, p e r i n a t a l , and developmental variableas and reading retardation i n middle class boys. C h i l d Development, 41, 481-491. Mercer, Jane R., and Lewis, June F. (1978). System of  mu l t i c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i s t i c assessment. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Nickel, R.E., Bennett, F.C., and Lamson, F.N. (1982). School performance of children with b i r t h weights of 1000 gm. or l e s s . American Journal of Deseases of Children, 136(2), 105-110. Noble-Jamieson, CM., Lukeman, D., Silverman, M., and Pamela, A.D. (1982). Low b i r t h weight children at school age: neurological, psychological, pulmonary function. Seminars i n Perinatology, 6.(4), 266-273. Ochroch, R. (Ed.). (1981). The diagnosis and treatment of  minimal brain dysfunction i n children. New York: Human Sciences Press. Pasamanick, S., and Nobloch, H. (1974). Gesell and  Amatruda's developmental diagnosis; The evaluation and  management of normal and abnormal neuropsychological  development i n infancy and early childhood. Hagerstown, Md.: Medical Department, Harper and Row. P e l o s i , P.L. (1981). The d i s a b l e d reader i n years p a s t . J o u r n a l of Research and Development i n Education, 14(4) , 1-10. R i c h a r d s , E.G. (1981). N e u r o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of Research and Development i n  E d u c a t i o n , 69(6), 232-235. Royer, James M., and Schumer, Harry (1976). Reading achievement gains as a f u n c t i o n of teacher p r e d i c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 69(6), 232-235. Samaroff, A r n o l d . J . (1977). E a r l y i n f l u e n c e s on development: F a c t or fancy? M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 21(4) , 267-294. S a t t l e r , Jerome M. (1982). Assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s  i n t e l l i g e n c e and s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s , Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon Inc. Smith, A.C., F l i c k , G.L., F e r r i s s , G.S., and Sellman, A.H. (1972). P r e d i c t i o n of developmental outcome at seven years from p r e n a t a l , p e r i n a t a l and p o s t n a t a l events. C h i l d  Development, 43, 495-507. Smith, Don and Wilborn, B.L. (1977). S p e c i f i c p r e d i c t o r s of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . Academic Therapy, 12(4), 471-477. S t . James-Roberts, I. (1979). N e u r o l o g i c a l p l a s t i c i t y : Recovery from b r a i n i n s u l t and c h i l d development. Advances  i n C h i l d Development and Behaviour, .14(4), 254-306. Uddenburg, G. (1955). D i a g n o s t i c s t u d i e s i n prematures. A c t a P s y c h i a t r i c a et N e u r o l o g i c a S c a n d i n a v i c a , Supplement 104, 102, 5-15. V e l l u t i n o , F.R., Steger, B.M., Moyer, S.C., Harding C.I., and N i l e s , J.A. (1977). Has the p e r c e p t u a l d e f i c i t h y p o t h e s i s l e d us astray? J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 10, 375-385. W h i t f i e l d , M i c h e a l . (1988). E a r l y b i r t h may pose l i f e - l o n g problems. E d u c a t i o n Leader, 1 (19), 1-12. Watson, B., Watson, C , and Fredd, R. (1982). Follow-up s t u d i e s of s p e c i f i c r eading d i s a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of the  American Academy of C h i l d P s y c h i a t r y , 22 (4), 376-382. Wiener, G e r a l d . (1974). S c h o l a s t i c achievement a t age 12-13 of prematurely born i n f a n t s . The J o u r n a l of S p e c i a l  E d u c a t i o n , 2 (3), 237-249. 77 Wormeli, Charles T. (1983). The B.C. QUIET. Vancouver, B.C.: The Unversity of B r i t i s h Columbia Education C l i n i c . APPENDIX 1 Would you p l e a s e f i l l i n the e n c l o s e d developmental h i s t o r y form b r i e f l y where a p p l i c a b l e . Items marked w i t h a (/) need o n l y be checked o f f i f a p p l i c a b l e . S u b j e c t ' s Age: y r s . mos. Sex (/): male female Current grade: grade(s) repeated: Subject attended (/): daycare nursery s c h o o l k i n d e r g a r t e n Family Background: Please d e s c r i b e b r i e f l y . Mother Father Occupation Primary language(s) spoken i n home Heal t h Problems E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Highest grade completed Do you l i v e with the c h i l d ? (yes/no) B r o t h e r s and S i s t e r s : E l d e s t Next O l d e s t Next Age ( i n years) Sex Grade Hea l t h Problems E d u c a t i o n a l D i f f i c u l t i e s Pregnancy and B i r t h : How o f t e n d i d you v i s i t the d o c t o r w h i l e you were pregnant wi t h the s u b j e c t ? (/) never once two or t h r e e times r e g u l a r l y What p r e n a t a l c o m p l i c a t i o n s d i d you experience w h i l e you were pregnant w i t h the subject? (/) none a l l e r g i e s i n f e c t i o n s measles toxwmia Other? E x p l a i n B r i e f l y . Length of pregnancy months Length of Labour hours Type of b i r t h (/): n a t u r a l Ceasarean induced high f o r c e p t s low f o r c e p t s breech Other? E x p l a i n b r i e f l y . S u b j e c t ' s weight at b i r t h : l b s . oz. o r gm. Was the s u b j e c t p l a c e d i n the incubator? (/) I f yes, f o r how long? days Was r e s u s c i t a t i o n used? (/) B r i e f l y d e s c r i b e any concerns f o r the s u b j e c t ' s h e a l t h a t b i r t h . Developmental M i l e s t o n e s : Compared t o other f a m i l y members, the s u b j e c t ' s development appeared (/) : f a s t e r the same slower Were t h e r e ever any concerns(by parent,other f a m i l y members, doctors) w i t h regards t o the s u b j e c t ' s (/): E a r l y P r e s e n t Development Development yes no yes no Feeding F i n e motor s k i l l s ( grasping o b j e c t s w i t h f i n g e r s , etc.) Gross motor s k i l l s (walking, running, etc.) Language development A r t i c u l a t i o n of words (speech) Memory Hearing V i s i o n P e r s o n a l S k i l l s ( t o i l e t i n g , d r e s s i n g , etc.) _ S o c i a l s k i l l s ( r e l u c t a n t t o p l a y w i t h o t h e r s , etc.) _ Emotional s t a b i l i t y ( e x c e s s i v e c r y i n g , i n s e c u r i t y , a n x i e t y , e t c . ) _ Health H i s t o r y : f i l l i n the other b r i e f l y i f you check yes t o any of the f o l l o w i n g : yes age s e v e r i t y comments (mild, moderate, or severe) Measles Mumps Pnemonia High temperatures Convulsions Other? ( s p e c i f y ) I n j u r i e s : Head Other: A d d i t i o n a l Health Problems: I n f e c t i o n s Heart Stomach Teeth A l l e r g i e s E p i l e p s y Present p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : h e i g h t : cm./inches weight: l b s . / K g . APPENDIX 3 SOMPA P a r e n t I n t e r v i e w G u i d e : S o c i o c u l t u r a l S c a l e s O c c u p a t i o n a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s * (For s c o r i n g the occupation of the head of the household) OCCUPATION SCORE Unemployed, on w e l f a r e , p u b l i c d i s a b i l i t y pension, 0 s o c i a l s e c u r i t y Laborers i n heavy manufacturing and on farms 1 laborers in textile mills, steel mills, shipyards, metal industries, saw mills, railroad and transportation yards; farm laborers, household workers; living-out janitors; porters, bootblacks; sharecroppers Laborors i n mining and l i g h t manufacturing, p e r s o n a l 2 s e r v i c e workers, equipment operators laborers in mines, quarries, and light manufacturing; workers in food industry; laborers in wholesale and retail trade; service persons such as cooks, guards, and barbers; recreational and hospital attendants; housekeepers (living-in); laundresses; truck, taxi, and tractor drivers; elevator operators; small farmers; blacksmiths; carpenters O p e r a t i v e s of heavy machinery and t o o l s , s e m i - s k i l l e d 3 s e r v i c e workers operatives of heavy road machinery, bus drivers; operators of plant, factory, and mill machinery; brick and t i l e masons; mechanics; welders and flame cutters; meat cutters; dressmakers, seamstresses, and tailors; service persons such as constables, marshals, ushers, bakers, gas station attendants, office boys, and messengers; shipping and receiving clerks; job setters S k i l l e d o p e r a t i v e s , craftsmen, s a l a r i e d b usiness 4' managers bus and railroad conductors and motormen; long distance truckers; deliverymen and routemen; craftsmen such as plumbers, pipe fitters, machinists, apprentices, office machine repairmen, opticians, piano tuners, and bookbinders; farm managers; boarding and lodging operators and managers, managers of garages and gas stations; buyers and shippers of farm products; managers of eating places; entertainers H i g h l y s k i l l e d craftsmen, s k i l l e d c l e r i c a l workers, 5 self-employed p r o p r i e t o r s i n wholesale t r a d e or f u r n i s h i n g s , s a l a r i e d managers i n r e t a i l t r a d e or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , c e r t a i n s e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l s railroad switchmen and brakemen; transportation and construction foremen; graphic processors; printers; pattern makers; projectionists; telephone and power linemen and servicemen; building inspectors; engravers; electricians; salesmen and service clerks; telephone and telegraph operators; office machine operators; library attendants and assistants; cashiers; dispatchers; self-employed proprietors in transportation, communications, general merchandice, and personal services; dancers and dancing teachers; professional nurses; medical and dental technicians; foresters H i g h l y s k i l l e d craftsmen, s k i l l e d c l e r i c a l workers, 6 self-employed p r o p r i e t o r s i n wholesale t r a d e or f u r n i s h i n g s , s a l a r i e d managers i n r e t a i l t r a d e or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , c e r t a i n s e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l s foreinen in metal industries, telecommunications, and u t i l i t i e s ; electrotypers, stereotypers, compositers, and typesetters; mail carriers; bookkeepers; bank tellers; proprietors in wholesale trade and home furnishings; salaried managers and officials in personal repair services, food and dairy stores, and other similar retail trade; managers in local public administration; union and lodge officials; store floormen and floor managers; professional embalmers and funeral directors; semiprofessional such as musicians, photographers, religious workers, testing technicians, therapists, and healers; clergymen; athletes H i g h l y s k i l l e d s a l e s and c l e r i c a l persons, s e l f - 7 employed p r o p r i e t o r s i n business s e r v i c e s , s a l a r i e d managers i n general establishments, l o w e r - l e v e l p r o f e s s i o n a l s agents of all kinds; express and railroad mail clerks; stenographers, typists and secretaries; skilled salesmen such as insurance agents and brokers, and real estate brokers; proprietors of business services, hardware, building material, and apparel establishments; salaried managers in retailing motor vehicles, and in furniture, apparel, and general merchandise stores, managers and officals in construction; managers in state and public administration; postmasters; inspectors in public administration; professionals such as sports instructors and officials, technicians, radio operators, librarians, actors and actresses, artists and art teachers, draftsmen, social workers, and welfare workers Managers i n manufacturing and t r a n s p o r t , o f f i c i a l s i n 8 f e d e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , m i d d l e - l e v e l p r o f e s s i o n a l s salaried managers and officials in manufacturing, transportation, radio, T.V.,utilities, and wholesale trade; purchasing agents and buyers; stock and bondsalesmen; self-employed proprietors in businesses such as insurance, real estate, and motor vehicles; officialsin federal public administration; creditmen; professionals such as veterinarians, teachers, optometrists, designers, interior decorators, chiropractors, chemists, authors, airplane pilots and navigators, accountants and auditors S k i l l e d managers, f e d e r a l goverment o f f i c i a l s , 9 d i r e c t o r s , h i g h e r - l e v e l p r o f e s s i o n a l s skilled managers in banking and finance; business consultants; consultants in insurance and real estate, federal government officals and adminstrators, professionals such as social scientists, natural scientists, physicians, surgeons, osteopaths, dentists, pharmacists, personnal and labor relations workers, psychologists, lawyers, judges, architects, and farm and home management consultants; all types of engineers; editors, reporters, and technical writers; college presidents; college instructors and professors * d e r i v e d f r o n the the Duncan Socioeconomic Index (Reiss 1961). Although many of the o c c u p a t i o n a l t i t l e s r e f e r t o the male sex, t h i s does not imply t h a t the jobs are l i m i t e d t o males. The r e p h r a s i n g of terms t o e l i m i n a t e "sexism" would have r e s u l t e d i n awkward and a r t i f i c i a l terminology, and t h e r e f o r e was not attempted. APPENDIX 4 TEACHER ESTIMATION OF READING ACHIEVEMENT The I l l i n o i s Inventory of Educational Progress (1980) selected a random sample of 7 200 children from 360 schools i n grades 4, 8, and 11. Amoung t h e i r findings they concluded that teachers of grades 4 and 8 were accurate i n t h e i r estimation of student performance, but grade 11 teachers underestimated student performance on 14 of the 17 objective tested. Royer and Schumer (1976) studied about 100 children as they progressed i n school from grades 1 to 6. The teachers of these children were asked to provide a prediction of the gains each student w i l l make based on previous records and a pre-test of the Stanford Reading Test. Gains were indicated i n grade equivalents for each subtest and ranged from .76 to 1.3 with a mean of 1.02. The co r r e l a t i o n between the teachers' predictions and the actual gains made were highly s i g n i f i c a n t : F ( l 185)=20.4 p> .01, while the co r r e l a t i o n for grade l e v e l and int e r a c t i o n remained i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Muriel E l l i o t (1974) used 620 children, aged 9 and 13, i n Minnesota, Maine, and R i c h f i e l d to study the accuracy of teachers' predicted student performance. Given her booklet of reading assessment, the teachers were asked to predict t h e i r students' performance as well as indicate the minimal acceptable and the desired lev e l s of performance. The predicted l e v e l showed the highest c o r r e l a t i o n to the actual performance. Edward Fuentes and Joseph Wisenbaker (1979) compared teacher ratings of 6 000 grade 4 and 6 migrant childrens' o r a l English proficiency with reading scores on the Comprehensive Test of Basic S k i l l s . Their findings indicate that teacher judgements may be used as a measure of migrant childrens' oral reading proficiency and as a covariate i n the analysis of reading test scores. Gerald W. Jorgenson (1975) provided an analysis of 84 elementary teachers' judgements of the r e a d a b i l i t y of graded passages presented to them. Amoung t h e i r findings they concluded that there was a pos i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between years of teaching experience and the accuracy of the teachers' estimation of grade equivalents. Peter Archer and Micheal Martin (1980) sampled 28 primary school teachers and t h e i r 804 students to determine i f teachers' ratings of reading attainment was biased by the student's s o c i a l c l a s s . Results showed l i t t l e support for the hypothesized teacher bias. APPENDIX 5 T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P BETWEEN OBTAINED IQ SCORES AND READING PERFORMANCE IQ T e s t WISC-R R e a d i n g t e s t various standardized D e s c r i p t i o n Nathlie Badian (1981) 190 students,aged 6 to 16,of the 65 "good readers" only 2 or 3 had F u l l Scale scores less than 95 . Stanford-Binet WISC-R WPPSI Lorge-Thorndike IQ Test Lorge Thorndike IQ Test N.Y. Sate Pupil Evaluation Programme (reading section) WRAT Reading sub. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test CAT and Metropoli-tan reading tests Archer and Sewall (1973) 405 students i n a l o n g i t u d i -nal study,significant relationship between IQ and reading progress. from Jerome S a t t l e r (1982) with F u l l Scale WISC-R score: --> .60 --> .58 --> .65 Stanford Achieve- E.G. Krebs,in Jerome S a t t l e r ment Test: Reading correlation with Verbal subtest Scale:.61 Performance Scale: .63, and F u l l Scale: .68. Stanford Reading Test Nelson Denny Reading Test Royer and Schumer (1976) grades 1 to 6, s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n F(2185)= .37 p< .05. Eisenberg (1975) 154 N. New Jersey high school students,total IQ with reading was .6604 p< .01. A P P E N D I X 6 S Y S T E M F O R D A T A C O D I N G C O L U M N R E S P O N S E N U M B E R S s u b j e c t ' s age 2 B . C . Quiet % i l e rank 3 sex 4 c u r r e n t grade 5 grade(s) repeated 6 attended 1) 4) 7) F A M I L Y B A C K G R O U N D : 7 mother occupation 8 language i n home 9 other l a n g . 10 h e a l t h problems 11 e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f s . 12 l i v e with sub. 13 f a t h e r occupation 14 language i n home 15 other l a n g . 16 h e a l t h problems 17 e d u c a t i o n a l d i f f s , 18 l i v e with sub. 19 e l d e s t age 20 sex 21 grade 22 h e a l t h prob. 23 educ. d i f f . 1) 5) 1 1 1) 0- 7 1- 9 7 9 0 y r s 1-15 5 2) 7.6-8.0 3) 8.1-8.5 4) 5 6) 9.6-10.0 7) 10.1-10.5 9) 11.1-11.50) 11.6-12.0 2) 35 and over 8.6-9, 8) 10. 1) male 2) female # grade # of grade(s) daycare 2) nursery a l l 5) nursery and nursery and kin d . school 3) kindergarten daycare 6) day. and kind, SOMPA # 1) E n g l i s h 2) French 3) Punjabi 4) I t a l i a n 5) Portugese 6) S a l i s h 1) E n g l i s h 2) French 3) Hebrew 1) heart 2) a l l e r g i e s 3) ear i n f e c t i o n s 4) migranes 5) ge n e r a l 6) t h y r o i d 1) r e a d i n g 2) s p e l l i n g 3) math 4) d i d not f i n i s h high sch. 5) f i n i s h e d H.S. 6) P o s t - s e c . 7) slow l e a r n e r 8) language 9) f a i l e d at l e a s t one grade 1) no 2) sometimes SOMPA # 1) E n g l i s h E n g l i s h asthma cancer r e a d i n g f i n i s h 2) French 3) Portuguese 2) French 3) I t a l i a n 2) blood pressure 4) T . B . 6) deceased 2) s p e l l i n g 3) math 4) d i d high sch. 5) f i n i s h e d H.S. 6) P o s t - s e c . 7) slow l e a r n e r 8) language 9) f a i l e d at l e a s t one grade 1) no 2) sometimes 1 ) 1 ) 5) 1 ) not 1) 1-3 2) 4-6 3) 7-9 4)10-12 5) 13-15 6)16-19 7) 20 years and up 1) male 2) female # grade 0) not a p p l i c a b l e 8) j u n i o r high 9) s e n i o r high 1) e a r , n o s e , t h r o a t 2) asthma 3) a l l e r g i e s 4) e p i l e p s y 1) r e a d i n g 2) s p e l l i n g 3) math 4) f a i l e d one grade 5) slow l e a r n e r 6) language 7) drop out+ 24 25 26 27 28 next age 30 31 32 33 sex grade h e a l t h prob. educ. d i f f . 29 next age sex grade h e a l t h prob. educ. d i f f . 1) 1-3 2) 4-6 3) 7-9 4)10-12 5) 13-15 6)16-19 7) 20 years and up 1) male 2) female # grade 0) not a p p l i c a b l e 8) j u n i o r high 9) s e n i o r high 1) a l l e r g i e s 2) bedwetter 3) asthma 1) reading 2) s p e l l i n g 3) math 4) la n g . develop. 5) slow l e a r n e r 6) drop out 1) 1-3 2) 4-6 3) 7-9 4)10-12 5) 13-15 6)16-19 7) 20 years and up 1 ) male 2) female # grade 0) not a p p l i c a b l e 8) j u n i o r high 9) s e n i o r high 1 ) a l l e r g i e s 1) reading 2) s p e l l i n g 3) math 4) slow l e a r n e r 5) general PREGNANCY AND BIRTH: 34 doctor v i s i t 35 p r e n a t a l comp. 36 l e n g t h preg. 37 l e n g t h labour 38 type of b i r t h 39 b i r t h weight 40 incubator 41 how long 42 r e s u s c i t a t i o n 43 other concerns 1) never 2) once 3) two or three 4) reg. 5) adopted 1) a l l e r g i e s 2) i n f e c t i o n 3) measles 4) toxemia 5) CAT scan 6) c h i c k e n pox 7) o v e r i n 8) p l a c e n t a f a i l u r e 9) a l c o h o l (moderate) # months 0) 0 1 ) 1 - 5 5) 21-25 6) 26-30 9) 41-45 hours 1) n a t u r a l 2) Ceasarean 3) induced 4) high f o r c e p t s 5) low f o r c e p t s 6) breech 7) other 2) 2500-2700 5) 3400-3600 4300-4500 2) 6-10 3) 11-15 4) 16-20 7) 21-35 8) 36-40 8) 3) 2800-3000 6) 3700-3900 9) 4600-4800 1) 2200-2400 4) 3100-3300 7) 4000-4200 0) 4900-5100 1 ) yes # days 1 ) yes 1) jaundi c e 2) heart murmur 3) heavy d r i n k e r 4) swallowed amneotic f l u i d 5) blue baby 6) blood t r a n s f u s i o n f o r mother DEVELOPMENTAL MILESTONES: 44 develop, appeared 1) f a s t e r 45 concerns f o r f e e d i n g 1) e a r l y 46 f i n e motor 1) e a r l y 47 gross motor 1) e a r l y 2) same 3) slower 2) present 3) e a r l y and present 2) present 3) e a r l y and present 2) present 3) e a r l y and present 48 l a n g . develop. 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 4 9 a r t i c u l a t i o n 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 5 0 memory 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 51 hear ing 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 5 2 v i s i o n 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 5 3 p e r s o n a l s k i l l s 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 5 4 s o c i a l s k i l l s 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present 5 5 emotional stab. 1) e a r l y 2 ) present 3 ) e a r l y and present HEALTH HISTORY: 5 6 measles 1) age 0] D.K. 5 7 sever i ty 1) m i l d 2) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 5 8 mumps 1) age 0 D.K. 5 9 s e v e r i t y 1) m i l d 2 moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 6 0 pneumon i a 1) age 0 1 D.K. 61 s e v e r i t y 1) m i l d 2 moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 6 2 high temperature 1) age 0 D.K. 6 3 s e v e r i t y 1) m i l d 2 moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 6 4 c o n v u l s i o n s 1) age 0 > D.K. 6 5 s e v e r i t y 1) m i l d 2 moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 6 6 other 1) age 0 ) D.K. 6 7 comment 1) T.B. 2 chicken pox 3 ) t o n s i l i t i s 4 ) rheumatic fever 5 ) headaches 6 ) seperated EEGs 7 ) b r o n c h i t u s 8 ) Schoehnlein Hanenoch syndrome and chicken pox 9 ) whooping cough 6 8 head i n j u r y 1 ) age 6 9 s e v e r i t y 1 ) mi Id 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 7 0 other 1 ) age 71 comment 1 ) fracture/mouth 2 ) burn 3 ) medication auto a c c i d e n t 5 ) b i g f a l l 7 2 i n f e c t i o n s ! ) age 7 3 s e v e r i t y 1 ) m i l d 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) s t a f f ears 6 ) menangitis 7 4 heart 1 ) age 7 5 s e v e r i t y 1 ) mi Id 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 7 6 stomach 1 ) age 7 7 s e v e r i t y 1 ) m i l d 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 7 8 t e e t h 1 ) age 7 9 sever i t y 1 ) mi Id 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 1 a l l e r g i e s 1 ) age 2 s e v e r i t y 1 ) mi Id 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 3 E p i l e p s y 1 ) age '4 s e v e r i t y 1 ) m i l d 2 ) moderate 3 ) severe 4 ) other 5 present h e i g h t 0 ) 0 . 9 1) 1 . 0 2 ) 1 . 1 3 ) 1 . 2 4 ) 1 . 3 5 ) 1 . 4 6 ) 1 . 5 7 ) 1 . 6 8 ) 1 . 7 9 ) 1 . 8 6 present weight 1 4 8 1 6 - 2 0 2 ) 2 1 - 2 5 3 ) 2 6 - 3 0 4 ) 3 1 - 3 5 3 6 - 4 0 5 ) 4 1 - 4 5 6 ) 4 6 - 5 0 7 ) 5 1 - 5 5 5 6 - 6 0 9 ) 6 1 - 6 5 0 ) 6 6 - 7 0 K i l o . 90 7 l e n g t h of l a b o r ( c o n t ) 1) 46-50 2) 51-55 3) 56-60 8 mother grade completed 1 ) 7 2) 8 3) 9 4) 10 5) 11 6) 12 7) trade school 8) c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y 9 f a t h e r grade completed 1 ) 7 2) 8 3) 9 4) 10 5) 11 6) 12 7) trade school 8) c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y APPENDIX 7 A Suggested Format For Revising the Developmental History Form Name of Subject Referred: Sex: Birthdate: Age: The following questions are to be completed by the parent or guardian most fa m i l i a r with the subject's history, a c t i v i t i e s , and routine. When an adult i s being referred, s/he should complete the questions when possible. Reason for Referral (Please provide examples when applicable): F A M I L Y BACKGROUND This section seeks information on the parent(s)/guardian(s) and s i b l i n g s (brothers and sis t e r s ) of the subject. In general, t h i s information a s s i s t s the c l i n i c i a n i n determining i f any environmental or hereditary factors might be contributing to the reason for r e f e r r a l . A. PARENT(S)/GUARDIANS MOTHER FATHER F i r s t Name Age Marital Status Highest Grade Completed Occupation Language(s) Spoken at Home Health Problems Do You Live with the Subject? (yes/no) B. BROTHERS AND SISTERS ELDEST NEXT NEXT F i r s t Name Age Sex Present Grade Health Problems Educational D i f f i c u l t i e s C. ADDITIONAL FAMILY FACTORS Are there any other persons l i v i n g i n the home? If yes, please give d e t a i l s . Are there any home problems (marital, f i n a n c i a l , etc.) you think might be contributing to the present d i f f i c u l t i e s of the subject? If yes, please give d e t a i l s . (Use other side of t h i s paper i f necessary.) H E A L T H H I S T O R Y O F S U B J E C T The Following series of questions deal with the subject's health from the prenatal stage to the present. This information w i l l a s s i s t the c l i n i c i a n working with the subject i n diagnosing d i f f i c u l t i e s as well as a s s i s t him/her i n developing an educational programme. If you do not know the information, please write (DK) i n the space provided f o r the answer. If adoptive or foster parents, please complete the following questions using the information you have been given. The same applies i f t h i s i s a s e l f - r e f e r r a l . A. PRENATAL AND DELIVERY How often did you v i s i t the doctor while you were pregnant with the subject? never once 2 - 3 times 4 - 5 times 6 - 7 times monthly What prenatal complications did you experience while pregnant with the subject? none a l l e r g i e s measles infections toxemia Please give d e t a i l s : other Length of pregnancy: months Length of Labour: hours Type of B i r t h : Natural Caesarean Induced High Forcepts Low Forcepts Breech other: Subject's weight at b i r t h : lbs or grams Was the subject placed i n an incubator? yes no If yes, for how long? days Was resusci t a t i o n used? yes no What were the concerns for the subject's health at birth? Explain. . DEVELOPMENTAL MILESTONES Compared to other family members, the subject's development appears: faster the same slower Please c i r c l e the appropriate degree to which there has been any concern ( by parents, other family members, doctors, teachers) with regards to the subject's: none very some a l o t l i t t l e feeding 0 1 2 3 4 5 fine motor s k i l l s .., Q. 1.....2 3 4 5 (grasping objects with fingers,ets.) gross motor s k i l l s 0 1 2 3 4 5 (walking, running, etc.) lanquage development, Q , 1.....2 3 4 5 (age at which f i r s t used words, etc.) language comprehension 0 1 2 3 4 5 (understanding) a r t i c u l a t i o n of words 0 1 2 3 4 5 memory 0 1 2 3 4 5 hearing 0 1 2 3 4 5 v i s i o n 0 1 2 3 4 5 personal s k i l l s 0 1 2 3 4 5 ( t o i l e t i n g , etc.) s o c i a l s k i l l s 0 1.....2. 3 4 5 (reluctance to play with others, etc,) emotional. s t a b i l i t y . 0 . 1.....2 3 4 5 (excessive crying, insecurity, anxiety,etc.) If there were concerns for any of the above behaviours, please explain i n more d e t a i l : C. ILLNESS YES AT AGE SEVERITY mild moderate severe measles 1 2 3 4 5 mumps 1 2 3 4 5 Pneumonia 1 2 3 4 5 High Temperatures 1 2 3 4 5 Convulsions 1 2 3 4 5 Other (specify) 1 2 3 4 5 D. INJURIES m i l d moderate severe head 1 2 3 4 5 other: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 E. ADDITIONAL HEALTH PROBLEMS I n f e c t i o n s 1 2 3 4 5 Heart 1 2 3 4 5 Stomach 1 2 3 4 5 Teeth 1 2 3 4 5 A l l e r g i e s 1 2 3 4 5 E p i l e p s y 1 2 3 4 5 F. PRESENT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECT Under each category, l i s t any a c t i v i t y i n which the s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t e s or i s i n t e r e s t e d i n , along with any r e l e v a n t h e a r i n g g l a s s e s worn a i d worn La s t P h y s i c a l : date by r e s u l t s What medication i s the s u b j e c t p r e s e n t l y on? G. INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES   comments. s p e c i f y A r t Music Sports Community O r g a n i z a t i o n s 96 Religious Organizations Reading (types of books) Hobbies SOCIAL INTERACTIONS How many close friends does the subject have? How would you describe the subject's approach to interactions with peers? avoids hesitant comfortable fr i e n d l y outgoing other (specify) TYPE spank withdraw priviledges y e l l at reason with send to room DISCIPLINE FREQUENCY (times per week) 1. . .2 . . .3 . ..4. . .5 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . ..4. . .5 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . .4.. .5 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . .4. . .5 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . ..4. . .5 SEVERITY mild moderate severe 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100494/manifest

Comment

Related Items