阅读障碍的流行病学:DSM-5和ICD-11标准的比较

IF 2.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Scientific Studies of Reading Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067
C. Di Folco, A. Guez, H. Peyre, F. Ramus
{"title":"阅读障碍的流行病学:DSM-5和ICD-11标准的比较","authors":"C. Di Folco, A. Guez, H. Peyre, F. Ramus","doi":"10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The present study performed a systematic comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for reading disability. We quantitatively investigated the consequences of using DSM-5 or ICD-11, and of the different ways of implementing each diagnostic criterion on the prevalence of reading disability. We did so in a representative sample of the population of French sixth-graders (N = 25,000), using a reading comprehension test to assess reading ability. A compromise set of criteria and thresholds yielded a prevalence of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to IQ and to interference with academic performance. Compared with the reference population, children with reading disability were more likely to be boys (sex ratio≈1.6), to be schooled in a disadvantaged area (OR≈2.1), and to have lower SES (d≈-0.7), non-verbal IQ (d≈-0.4 – -0.9), and math scores (d≈-1.4). Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of diagnostic criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with reading disability.","PeriodicalId":48032,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Studies of Reading","volume":"26 1","pages":"337 - 355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiology of reading disability: A comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria\",\"authors\":\"C. Di Folco, A. Guez, H. Peyre, F. Ramus\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The present study performed a systematic comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for reading disability. We quantitatively investigated the consequences of using DSM-5 or ICD-11, and of the different ways of implementing each diagnostic criterion on the prevalence of reading disability. We did so in a representative sample of the population of French sixth-graders (N = 25,000), using a reading comprehension test to assess reading ability. A compromise set of criteria and thresholds yielded a prevalence of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to IQ and to interference with academic performance. Compared with the reference population, children with reading disability were more likely to be boys (sex ratio≈1.6), to be schooled in a disadvantaged area (OR≈2.1), and to have lower SES (d≈-0.7), non-verbal IQ (d≈-0.4 – -0.9), and math scores (d≈-1.4). Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of diagnostic criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with reading disability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Studies of Reading\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"337 - 355\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Studies of Reading\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Studies of Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

摘要本研究对DSM-5和ICD-11阅读障碍诊断标准进行了系统比较。我们定量研究了使用DSM-5或ICD-11的后果,以及实施每种诊断标准的不同方式对阅读障碍患病率的影响。我们在法国六年级学生(N=25000)的代表性样本中这样做,使用阅读理解测试来评估阅读能力。根据DSM-5,一组折衷的标准和阈值的患病率为6.6%,根据ICD-11,患病率为3.5%。对患病率估计影响最大的因素是与智商和学业成绩干扰相关的标准。与参考人群相比,阅读障碍儿童更有可能是男孩(性别比≈1.6),在贫困地区上学(OR≈2.1),社会经济地位(d≈-0.7)、非语言智商,和数学成绩(d≈-1.4)。我们的研究结果强调,分类的选择和诊断标准的操作对谁被诊断为阅读障碍有很大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Epidemiology of reading disability: A comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria
ABSTRACT The present study performed a systematic comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for reading disability. We quantitatively investigated the consequences of using DSM-5 or ICD-11, and of the different ways of implementing each diagnostic criterion on the prevalence of reading disability. We did so in a representative sample of the population of French sixth-graders (N = 25,000), using a reading comprehension test to assess reading ability. A compromise set of criteria and thresholds yielded a prevalence of 6.6% according to DSM-5 and 3.5% according to ICD-11. Factors that had the greatest influence on prevalence estimates were the criteria relative to IQ and to interference with academic performance. Compared with the reference population, children with reading disability were more likely to be boys (sex ratio≈1.6), to be schooled in a disadvantaged area (OR≈2.1), and to have lower SES (d≈-0.7), non-verbal IQ (d≈-0.4 – -0.9), and math scores (d≈-1.4). Our results emphasize that the choice of classification and the operationalization of diagnostic criteria have a large impact on who is diagnosed with reading disability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and, occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature, papers focused on theory development, and discussions of social policy issues. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The journal also includes work on "all aspects of reading and its related areas," a phrase that is sufficiently general to encompass issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults.
期刊最新文献
A Multi-Site Study of Student Experiences with Code- and Meaning-Focused Literacy in Preschool-Third Grade Classrooms Intergenerational Effects on Children’s Reading Comprehension in Chinese: Evidence from a 3-Year Longitudinal Study The Science of Teaching Reading is Incomplete without the Science of Writing: A Randomized Control Trial of Integrated Teaching of Reading and Writing Building a Science of Teaching Reading and Vocabulary: Experimental Effects of Structured Supplements for a Read Aloud Lesson on Third Graders’ Domain-Specific Reading Comprehension Preschool Morphological Awareness and Developmental Change in Early Reading Ability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1