Identifying Children with Specific Reading Disabilities From Listening and Reading Discrepancy Scores

Abstract

A method of identifying children with specific reading disabilities by identifying discrepancies between their reading and listening comprehension scores was validated with disabled and nondisabled readers in Grades 4, 5, and 6. The method is based on a modification of the reading comprehension subtest of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn & Markwardt, 1970). In this modification, even-numbered sentences are read by subjects, and odd-numbered sentences are read by the test administrator as subjects listen. The features of this test that reduce demands on working memory, thereby making it suitable for the detection of a discrepancy between reading and listening comprehension in readers with disabilities, are discussed. A significant group-by-modality interaction was obtained. Children with reading disabilities scored significantly lower on reading than on listening comprehension, while nondisabled readers scored slightly higher, but not significantly so, on reading than on listening comprehension. The appropriateness of this method as a substitute for the traditional method, which is based on the detection of a discrepancy between intelligence and reading and which has recently been proscribed in certain school districts, is discussed. Issues concerning the listening comprehension skills of disabled readers are also discussed.

Orthography and Modality Influence Speech Production in Adults and Children

“…Individuals with dyslexia typically demonstrate average or above-average linguistic comprehension skills but poor decoding skills (Catts, Kamhi, & Adlof, 2012). This discrepancy model is consistent with many previous studies of children and adults with reading difficulties (e.g., Badian, 1999;Bell & Perfetti, 1994;Spring & French, 1990).…”

Language‐related differences between discrepancy‐defined and non‐discrepancy‐defined poor readers: a longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand

“…This suggestion is consistent with the view of many reading researchers (e.g. Aaron, 1989;Gough & Tunmer, 1986;Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000;Spring & French, 1991;Tunmer & Hoover, 1992, 1993 and is based on the premise that children whose reading comprehension is inferior to their listening comprehension are probably in need of assistance because their inefficient word recognition processes impede comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986;Perfetti, 1985). Further, there is some evidence to indicate that listening comprehension places an upper limit on reading comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990;Royer, Kulhavy, Lee, & Peterson, 1986 These ideas are included in a model of the proximal causes of reading difficulties developed by Gough and Tunmer (1986).…”

Listening, Grammar and Reading Comprehension Skills of the Test of English as a Foreign Language: A Correlational Study

“…In other words, a good grammatical knowledge does not directly affect the reading comprehension skill. Spring & French (1990) has stated that listening and reading are both receptive language skills. In both listening and reading, but the primary objective is to develop meaning.…”