综合学习测验诊断特殊阅读或数学障碍的效度。

IF 1.4 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Sujin Kim, Woo Young Kim, Hyunju Lee, Eun Kyung Lee, Hannah Huh, JungHae Youn, Jaesuk Jung, Cheon Seok Suh, Bongseog Kim, Hanik Yoo
{"title":"综合学习测验诊断特殊阅读或数学障碍的效度。","authors":"Sujin Kim, Woo Young Kim, Hyunju Lee, Eun Kyung Lee, Hannah Huh, JungHae Youn, Jaesuk Jung, Cheon Seok Suh, Bongseog Kim, Hanik Yoo","doi":"10.5765/jkacap.250022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to verify the diagnostic validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test (CLT) for children and adolescents with reading (RD) or mathematical disorders (MD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic validity of the CLT-Reading (CLT-R) and CLT-Math (CLT-M), a total of 284 participants (142 in RD and 142 in the control group) and 184 participants (92 in MD and 92 in the control group) were recruited, respectively. The control groups were selected through one-to-one matching based on sex and grade. For the CLT-R, three criteria were established using accuracy and fluency measures (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline, and one impairment or two borderline scores). Two criteria were established for the CLT-M (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline score). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each criterion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the CLT-R, when no impairment or borderline score presented in accuracy, applying the fluency criterion of \"one impairment or one borderline score\" yielded the highest diagnostic validity for RD, with a sensitivity of 0.963 and an NPV of 0.991. In the CLT-M, when no impairment or borderline score in accuracy, was present applying the fluency criterion of \"impairment or borderline\" resulted in the highest diagnostic validity for MD, with a sensitivity of 0.814 and specificity of 0.966.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings support that the CLT-R and CLT-M are highly valid tools for diagnosing RD and MD.</p>","PeriodicalId":42806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","volume":"36 3","pages":"174-181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223673/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test for Diagnosis of Specific Reading or Mathematical Disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Sujin Kim, Woo Young Kim, Hyunju Lee, Eun Kyung Lee, Hannah Huh, JungHae Youn, Jaesuk Jung, Cheon Seok Suh, Bongseog Kim, Hanik Yoo\",\"doi\":\"10.5765/jkacap.250022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to verify the diagnostic validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test (CLT) for children and adolescents with reading (RD) or mathematical disorders (MD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To evaluate the diagnostic validity of the CLT-Reading (CLT-R) and CLT-Math (CLT-M), a total of 284 participants (142 in RD and 142 in the control group) and 184 participants (92 in MD and 92 in the control group) were recruited, respectively. The control groups were selected through one-to-one matching based on sex and grade. For the CLT-R, three criteria were established using accuracy and fluency measures (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline, and one impairment or two borderline scores). Two criteria were established for the CLT-M (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline score). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each criterion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the CLT-R, when no impairment or borderline score presented in accuracy, applying the fluency criterion of \\\"one impairment or one borderline score\\\" yielded the highest diagnostic validity for RD, with a sensitivity of 0.963 and an NPV of 0.991. In the CLT-M, when no impairment or borderline score in accuracy, was present applying the fluency criterion of \\\"impairment or borderline\\\" resulted in the highest diagnostic validity for MD, with a sensitivity of 0.814 and specificity of 0.966.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings support that the CLT-R and CLT-M are highly valid tools for diagnosing RD and MD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":42806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"174-181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223673/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.250022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.250022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在验证综合学习测验(CLT)对儿童和青少年阅读障碍(RD)或数学障碍(MD)的诊断有效性。方法:为评估CLT-Reading (CLT-R)和CLT-Math (CLT-M)的诊断有效性,共招募284名受试者(RD 142人,对照组142人)和184名受试者(MD 92人,对照组92人)。对照组根据性别和年级进行一对一配对。对于CLT-R,使用准确性和流畅性测量建立了三个标准(一个缺陷,一个缺陷或一个边缘,一个缺陷或两个边缘分数)。建立了CLT-M的两个标准(一次损伤、一次损伤或一次边缘评分)。计算各指标的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值(NPV)。结果:在CLT-R中,当准确性不存在损害或边界分时,应用“一损害或一边界分”的流畅性标准对RD的诊断效度最高,敏感性为0.963,NPV为0.991。在CLT-M中,当准确性没有受损或边缘评分时,应用“受损或边缘”的流畅性标准对MD的诊断有效性最高,敏感性为0.814,特异性为0.966。结论:这些发现支持CLT-R和CLT-M是诊断RD和MD的高度有效的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test for Diagnosis of Specific Reading or Mathematical Disorders.

Objectives: This study aimed to verify the diagnostic validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test (CLT) for children and adolescents with reading (RD) or mathematical disorders (MD).

Methods: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of the CLT-Reading (CLT-R) and CLT-Math (CLT-M), a total of 284 participants (142 in RD and 142 in the control group) and 184 participants (92 in MD and 92 in the control group) were recruited, respectively. The control groups were selected through one-to-one matching based on sex and grade. For the CLT-R, three criteria were established using accuracy and fluency measures (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline, and one impairment or two borderline scores). Two criteria were established for the CLT-M (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline score). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each criterion.

Results: In the CLT-R, when no impairment or borderline score presented in accuracy, applying the fluency criterion of "one impairment or one borderline score" yielded the highest diagnostic validity for RD, with a sensitivity of 0.963 and an NPV of 0.991. In the CLT-M, when no impairment or borderline score in accuracy, was present applying the fluency criterion of "impairment or borderline" resulted in the highest diagnostic validity for MD, with a sensitivity of 0.814 and specificity of 0.966.

Conclusion: These findings support that the CLT-R and CLT-M are highly valid tools for diagnosing RD and MD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.00%
发文量
20
×
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