No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Existing methods for classifying children according to reading level appear to be qualitative, conflicting, and unnecessarily gross. This paper reviews problems of definition leading to failure in proper classification, and presents a case for consistency in defining dyslexic, hyperlexic, and normal readers. A classification model recognizing that reading expectation should be functionally related to a general measure of academic potential is proposed. Standard regression techniques are employed to develop the method, which can be used with continuous or grouped IQ data. A simplified approximation of the method is also described. Reading is very much on the mind of theAmerican public generally and the professional educator specifically. Scientific journals are devoted to studies in this area, while popular magazines and newspapers have found the subject one of high interest. More recently, emphasis on learning problems has led to * Development and preparation of this material was made possible under Grant RT-2 of the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, awarded to the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of the University of Minnesota Medical School, and the Kenny Rehabilitation Institute,increased concern among educators and parent groups about how to raise functional reading level. Despite considerable time and money spent in this area, certain very basic concepts have been poorly explored. Among these is the fact that there is little or no agreement concerning what is meant by "problem" readers (Silberberg and Silberberg, 1969a).Research in the area of learning problems suffers from the fact that studies of groups of children so classified in one school district have little potential applicability for other school districts. Definitions are so vague -"children in remedial classes," "children one year below grade placement and with a normal LQ." -as to be of doubtful validity. Some researchers even use the discrepancy between performance and verbal I.Q. as if the former represents capacity to learn while the latter represents the individual's functional level, even though there is a good probability that performance and verbal I.Q. are assessing the functions of two different brain hemispheres. Accepting such definitions is often a matter of necessity. Faced with the logistical problem of selecting a sample, the researcher has to make do with grosser classification schemes than he would wish. Unfortunately, having experimented with several of these schemes, we find them lacking.