Kindergarten screening tools filled out by parents and teachers targeting dyslexia. Predictions and developmental trajectories from age 5 to age 15 years.

IF 1.9 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Dyslexia Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-28 DOI:10.1002/dys.1698
Turid Helland, Frøydis Morken, Wenche A Helland
{"title":"Kindergarten screening tools filled out by parents and teachers targeting dyslexia. Predictions and developmental trajectories from age 5 to age 15 years.","authors":"Turid Helland,&nbsp;Frøydis Morken,&nbsp;Wenche A Helland","doi":"10.1002/dys.1698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept of early 'efforts' has led to discussions for and against introducing language assessment for all kindergarten children. Evidence-based kindergarten screening tools completed by close caregivers could solve this controversy as the children themselves would only be indirectly involved. The aim of this study was to see whether the scores of such early screening tools aiming at developmental dyslexia could predict school marks of literacy competence 10 years later, and to see whether these screening tools would reveal different dyslexia trajectories. The study is part of the Bergen Longitudinal Dyslexia Study, and the results from individual testing are reported elsewhere. Here, the caregivers' views isolated from the rest of the study are focused. Three tools were used: the RI-5, a questionnaire assessing the risk of dyslexia; the TRAS, a non-standardized observation tool of children's communication skills; and the CCC-2, a questionnaire assessing Developmental Language Disorders. Screening was performed at age 5 (TP1), age 11, (TP2) and age 15 (TP3). At TP2, when dyslexia was identified, 13 children formed the dyslexia group, and the rest formed the control group. At TP3, the RI-5 and CCC-2 turned out to be predictive of literacy competence as measured by school marks. Developmental trajectories were seen through the regroupings and scorings into a persistent group, a late onset group and a resolving group. Evidence-based preschool screening tools filled out by close caregivers offer valid information on later literacy developmental trajectories.</p>","PeriodicalId":47222,"journal":{"name":"Dyslexia","volume":"27 4","pages":"413-435"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1698","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The concept of early 'efforts' has led to discussions for and against introducing language assessment for all kindergarten children. Evidence-based kindergarten screening tools completed by close caregivers could solve this controversy as the children themselves would only be indirectly involved. The aim of this study was to see whether the scores of such early screening tools aiming at developmental dyslexia could predict school marks of literacy competence 10 years later, and to see whether these screening tools would reveal different dyslexia trajectories. The study is part of the Bergen Longitudinal Dyslexia Study, and the results from individual testing are reported elsewhere. Here, the caregivers' views isolated from the rest of the study are focused. Three tools were used: the RI-5, a questionnaire assessing the risk of dyslexia; the TRAS, a non-standardized observation tool of children's communication skills; and the CCC-2, a questionnaire assessing Developmental Language Disorders. Screening was performed at age 5 (TP1), age 11, (TP2) and age 15 (TP3). At TP2, when dyslexia was identified, 13 children formed the dyslexia group, and the rest formed the control group. At TP3, the RI-5 and CCC-2 turned out to be predictive of literacy competence as measured by school marks. Developmental trajectories were seen through the regroupings and scorings into a persistent group, a late onset group and a resolving group. Evidence-based preschool screening tools filled out by close caregivers offer valid information on later literacy developmental trajectories.

由家长和老师填写的针对阅读障碍的幼儿园筛选工具。5岁到15岁的预测和发展轨迹。
早期“努力”的概念引发了支持和反对对所有幼儿园儿童引入语言评估的讨论。由近距离看护人完成的基于证据的幼儿园筛选工具可以解决这一争议,因为孩子自己只是间接参与。本研究的目的是了解这些针对发展性阅读障碍的早期筛查工具的分数是否可以预测10年后读写能力的学校分数,以及这些筛查工具是否会揭示不同的阅读障碍轨迹。这项研究是卑尔根纵向阅读障碍研究的一部分,个别测试的结果在其他地方报道。在这里,照顾者的观点与研究的其他部分隔离开来。使用了三种工具:RI-5,一种评估阅读障碍风险的问卷;TRAS,一个观察儿童沟通技巧的非标准化工具;以及CCC-2,一份评估发展性语言障碍的问卷。在5岁(TP1)、11岁(TP2)和15岁(TP3)时进行筛查。在TP2时,当发现阅读障碍时,13名儿童组成阅读障碍组,其余儿童组成对照组。在第三阶段,RI-5和CCC-2被证明是通过学校分数衡量的读写能力的预测指标。通过重新分组和评分来观察发展轨迹,分为持久组、晚发组和解决组。由密切照顾者填写的基于证据的学前筛查工具提供了关于后期读写能力发展轨迹的有效信息。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信