No abstract

Several crucial reasons exist to identify whether an adult has had reading disorder (RD) and to predict a child’s likelihood of developing RD. The Adult Reading History Questionnaire (ARHQ) is among the most commonly used self-reported questionnaires. High ARHQ scores indicate an increased likelihood that an adult had RD as a child, and that their children may develop RD. This study focused on whether a subset of ARHQ items (ARHQ-brief) could be equally effective in assessing adults’ reading history as the full ARHQ. We used a machine learning approach, lasso (known as L1 regularization), and identified 6 of 23 items that resulted in the ARHQ-brief. Data from 97 adults and 47 children were included. With the ARHQ-brief, we report a threshold of 0.323 as suitable to identify past likelihood of RD in adults with a sensitivity of 72.4% and a specificity of 81.5%. Comparison of predictive performances between ARHQ-brief and the full ARHQ showed that ARHQ-brief explained an additional 10%–35.2% of the variance in adult and child reading. Furthermore, we validated ARHQ-brief’s superior ability to predict reading ability using an independent sample of 28 children. We close by discussing limitations and future directions.

No abstract

No abstract

The primary goal of the present systematic review was to examine the criteria and measures used for assessing students with specific comprehension deficit (SCD), who have adequate decoding skills, but still perform poorly on reading comprehension assessments. From a systematic review of 32 studies, we found four predominant selection approaches for classifying students with SCD and a wide range of measurements of reading skills used to distinguish students with SCD from skilled readers. In addition, to develop a reading profile for students with SCD, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the characteristics of SCD by comparing their reading skills to those of skilled readers. Results revealed that students with SCD demonstrated deficits in oral language (i.e., vocabulary and listening comprehension) and reading comprehension, despite adequate decoding and fluency skills. Their reading comprehension deficits (Hedges’s g = −3.28) were also more severe than their oral language deficits (Hedges’s g = −0.95). We provide recommendations and implications for future researchers and classroom teachers.