Validity of Screening Tests for Learning Disabilities: A Comparison of Three Measures

Abstract

Two groups of 20 children (8 to 10 years of age) were administered three screening tests used to assess learning disabilities, each of which represents one of three approaches: the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (Bender), an example of the “single test” approach; the Quick Neurological Screening Test (QNST), which represents the “soft neurological sign” approach; and the Screening Test for the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision (ST-LNNB), which represents a “neuropsychological” approach. One group of subjects was comprised of children with learning disabilities (LD), and the comparison group was a random sample of nondisabled (ND) students. The groups were matched carefully for IQ, age, and grade. Results indicated that there were no significant group differences on either the Bender or the QNST. On the ST-LNNB, the LD group performed significantly more poorly than the ND group (p < .0001). The classification accuracy rate of the ST-LNNB was 97.5%, with 39 of the 40 subjects correctly classified according to their group status (i.e., LD or ND). The findings suggest that the Bender and QNST should not be used as tools to suggest the presence or absence of a learning disability. The ST-LNNB may be a valid instrument for screening for learning disabilities, although more study will be needed prior to clinical application.

Perfiles neuropsicológicos de pacientes esquizofrénicos en la batería de Luria-DNA

“…Este instrumento ha sido empleado en la evaluación de personas con discapacidad física (Becker, 1991;Mall, 2000;Robbins, 1997;Sink y Harrington, 1994;Tsushima y Newbill, 1996), discapacidad intelectual (Bogner, 1990;Bowers, 1993;Garland, 1994;Kilpatrick y Lewandowski, 1996;Lewis, Garland, y Hutchens, 1991;Lewis, Hutchens, y Garland, 1993;Neumaker y Bzufka, 1989;Patterson, 1991;Podmoroff, 1991;Reynolds y Mayfield, 2005;Sims, 1993;Worthen, 1992), Con personas mayores con Alzheimer o demencia (Muñoz Cespedes, Iruarrizaga Diez, Miguel-Tobal, y Cano Vindel, 1995; Yanguas, Buiza, Etxeberria, Galdona, González y Urdaneta, 2006) y en enfermedad mental (Bryson, Silverstein, Nathan, y Stephen, 1993;Chelune, 1983;Harrell, Nagel, y Gray, 1993;Hooper, 1995;Macciocchi, Fowler, y Ranseen, 1992;Milstein, 1992;Miller, Faustman, Moses, y Csernansky, 1991;Miller, Swanson-Green, Moses, y Faustman, 1996;Newman y Silverstein, 1987), o en pacientes con discapacidades mixtas (Devaraju-Backhaus, Espe-Pfeifer, Mahrou, y ).…”

“…Es una prueba que ha mostrado una adecuada fiabilidad (Bradley, Teichner, Crum, y Golden, 2000;Kashden, 1996), validez de constructo (Bradley, et al, 2000;Nagel, 1990;Teichner, Golden, Bradley, y Crum, 1999), validez predictiva (Nagel, Harrell, y Gray, 1997) validez convergente y discriminante (Garmoe, 1990;Garmoe, Schefft y Moses, 1991;Kilpatrick y Lewandowski, 1996;Lewis, et al, 1991;Lewis, et al, 1993;Makatura, 1993;Moses, 1990;Moses, Pritchard y Adams, 1997;Moses, Pritchard y Faustman, 1994;Podmoroff, 1991;Silverstein, Strauss, y Fogg, 1990), si bien con algunos resultados contradictorios (McKinzey, Roecker, Puente, y Rogers, 1998) así como adecuado funcionamiento en estudios transculturales (Golden y Thomas, 2000).…”