Revisiting Identification Thresholds of Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) in Gifted Children (GC). A Comparison of Three Groups: Twice-Exceptional (TE) Children, GC Without SLD and Non-GC With SLD

IF 1.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Dyslexia Pub Date : 2026-10-15 DOI:10.1002/dys.70050
Laurent Lesecq, Laurent Querne, Julie Gornes, Laura Buffo, Louise Corbel, Loïse Perrais, Maëlys Kartner, Anne Gaelle Le Moing, Beatrice Bourdin, Patrick Berquin
{"title":"Revisiting Identification Thresholds of Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) in Gifted Children (GC). A Comparison of Three Groups: Twice-Exceptional (TE) Children, GC Without SLD and Non-GC With SLD","authors":"Laurent Lesecq,&nbsp;Laurent Querne,&nbsp;Julie Gornes,&nbsp;Laura Buffo,&nbsp;Louise Corbel,&nbsp;Loïse Perrais,&nbsp;Maëlys Kartner,&nbsp;Anne Gaelle Le Moing,&nbsp;Beatrice Bourdin,&nbsp;Patrick Berquin","doi":"10.1002/dys.70050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigates assessment of Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) in Twice-Exceptional (TE) children, gifted children (GC) who also present SLD, in oral and written language domains. Applying the standard threshold for identification (&lt; 7th percentile) to GC often results in the assessment and identification of SLD in the TE population, thereby limiting access to appropriate support. The objective was to determine which language tests effectively identify SLD in TE children and establish optimal threshold values. The prospective study included 301 children 7–16 years, divided into three groups: GC without SLD (<i>n</i> = 71), TE children (<i>n</i> = 114), and non-gifted children with SLD (<i>n</i> = 116). Language test performances were compared across groups, and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were employed to optimize test sensitivity and specificity in the TE group. TE children performed better than the SLD group but worse than GC without disorders. At standard thresholds, text reading and spelling tests showed the highest sensitivity, which significantly improved when CART-derived decision thresholds (62nd and 38th percentiles) were applied, while maintaining satisfactory specificity. Results indicate that standard thresholds lead to under-identification of SLD in GC, and that adjusted thresholds enhance identification accuracy. These findings should generalize to similarly complex languages, such as English.</p>","PeriodicalId":47222,"journal":{"name":"Dyslexia","volume":"32 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/dys.70050","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dys.70050","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates assessment of Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) in Twice-Exceptional (TE) children, gifted children (GC) who also present SLD, in oral and written language domains. Applying the standard threshold for identification (< 7th percentile) to GC often results in the assessment and identification of SLD in the TE population, thereby limiting access to appropriate support. The objective was to determine which language tests effectively identify SLD in TE children and establish optimal threshold values. The prospective study included 301 children 7–16 years, divided into three groups: GC without SLD (n = 71), TE children (n = 114), and non-gifted children with SLD (n = 116). Language test performances were compared across groups, and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were employed to optimize test sensitivity and specificity in the TE group. TE children performed better than the SLD group but worse than GC without disorders. At standard thresholds, text reading and spelling tests showed the highest sensitivity, which significantly improved when CART-derived decision thresholds (62nd and 38th percentiles) were applied, while maintaining satisfactory specificity. Results indicate that standard thresholds lead to under-identification of SLD in GC, and that adjusted thresholds enhance identification accuracy. These findings should generalize to similarly complex languages, such as English.

对资优儿童特殊学习障碍(SLD)识别阈值的重新审视。两异常(TE)儿童、无SLD的GC和无SLD的非GC三组的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dyslexia
Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: DYSLEXIA provides reviews and reports of research, assessment and intervention practice. In many fields of enquiry theoretical advances often occur in response to practical needs; and a central aim of the journal is to bring together researchers and practitioners in the field of dyslexia, so that each can learn from the other. Interesting developments, both theoretical and practical, are being reported in many different countries: DYSLEXIA is a forum in which a knowledge of these developments can be shared by readers in all parts of the world. The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education Therapy and Counselling Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine The scope of the journal includes relevant aspects of: - Cognitive, Educational, Developmental and Clinical Psychology - Child and Adult Special Education and Remedial Education - Therapy and Counselling - Neuroscience, Psychiatry and General Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书