The Neale Scales of Early Childhood Development and Later Reading Performance: A multivariate analysis∗

Extending pre‐school experience as preventive intervention: Relationships with later reading achievement

“…The results also support earlier findings (Neale et al, 1979) that this instrument is a reliable predictor of later reading performance.…”

“…Badian (1982) demonstrated that prediction of later good or poor reading was no less accurate at age 4 than at 5-6 years and that language and word-finding tasks were effective predictors; results indicated 92% correct identification of students assessed as good or poor readers four years later on the Standard Achievement Test. In investigating the validity of the Neale Scales of Early Childhood Development, Neale, McKay and Thompson (1979) reported a study in which 204 pre-school children were followed up over a four-year period; findings supported the claim that this instrument can predict later reading achievement on the basis of the performance of non-academic tasks prior to school entry. One factor, receptive language ability, discriminated between readers who were below average at the end of the preparatory grade but who improved by Grade 4, and those who did not improve despite average intelligence and adequate teaching.…”

The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability — Revised

“…Supplementary language and cognitive tests were also administered to provide information on concurrent validity. These included Schonell's Graded Word Reading Test (Schonell and Goodacre, 1974), the Vocabulary and Similarities subtests of the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974), and for the younger students the Articulation and Initial Sound subtests of the Neale Scales of Early Childhood Development (Neale, 1976). All tests were usually administered in a single session of approximately one hour.…”

The Predictive Validity of Bannatyne's Wisc Categories for Later Reading Achievement

“…), a High-down group (top 3 stanines when first assessed, lower rating in subsequent years, N = 16), a High-high group "above average" readers (maintained membership in top 3 stanines in all years assessed N = 16) and finally a Variable group whose performance was rather more erratic across the period of study, N = 11. The same basic procedures are outlined more fully elsewhere (McKay, 1977;Neale et al, 1979).…”