在大学里识别阅读障碍:仅仅评估语音编码是不够的

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Annals of Dyslexia Pub Date : 2022-03-10 DOI:10.1007/s11881-021-00247-9
Helle Fredslund Ottosen, Katrine H. Bønnerup, Ethan Weed, Rauno Parrila
{"title":"在大学里识别阅读障碍:仅仅评估语音编码是不够的","authors":"Helle Fredslund Ottosen,&nbsp;Katrine H. Bønnerup,&nbsp;Ethan Weed,&nbsp;Rauno Parrila","doi":"10.1007/s11881-021-00247-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A dyslexia diagnosis in Denmark can have significant consequences for individuals, as support is not available to others with reading difficulties. Currently, the diagnosis is given solely on the basis of an electronically administered test consisting of two tasks assessing grapheme-phoneme correspondences. To examine whether the Danish diagnostic test is sufficient to identify university students with dyslexia, we compared the performance of 239 Danish university students who reported literacy difficulties and were tested for dyslexia with the Danish diagnostic test on three word-level tests (low-frequency word reading, high-frequency word reading and spelling to dictation) with the performance of separate control groups for each test: 220, 212 and 218 students, respectively. The results showed that 61% of students labelled “not dyslexic” by the Danish diagnostic test performed significantly worse than controls on at least two out of three word-level tests. In terms of self-report of literacy difficulties, students labelled “not dyslexic” by the diagnostic test were indistinguishable from those labelled “dyslexic.” These findings suggest that the current method of diagnosing dyslexia in Denmark is too narrow and that adding a few simple tests of word reading and spelling would minimize the risk of overlooking students in need of literacy support.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"72 1","pages":"147 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying dyslexia at the university: assessing phonological coding is not enough\",\"authors\":\"Helle Fredslund Ottosen,&nbsp;Katrine H. Bønnerup,&nbsp;Ethan Weed,&nbsp;Rauno Parrila\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11881-021-00247-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A dyslexia diagnosis in Denmark can have significant consequences for individuals, as support is not available to others with reading difficulties. Currently, the diagnosis is given solely on the basis of an electronically administered test consisting of two tasks assessing grapheme-phoneme correspondences. To examine whether the Danish diagnostic test is sufficient to identify university students with dyslexia, we compared the performance of 239 Danish university students who reported literacy difficulties and were tested for dyslexia with the Danish diagnostic test on three word-level tests (low-frequency word reading, high-frequency word reading and spelling to dictation) with the performance of separate control groups for each test: 220, 212 and 218 students, respectively. The results showed that 61% of students labelled “not dyslexic” by the Danish diagnostic test performed significantly worse than controls on at least two out of three word-level tests. In terms of self-report of literacy difficulties, students labelled “not dyslexic” by the diagnostic test were indistinguishable from those labelled “dyslexic.” These findings suggest that the current method of diagnosing dyslexia in Denmark is too narrow and that adding a few simple tests of word reading and spelling would minimize the risk of overlooking students in need of literacy support.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"147 - 170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Dyslexia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-021-00247-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-021-00247-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

丹麦的阅读障碍诊断可能会对个人产生重大影响,因为其他有阅读困难的人无法获得支持。目前,诊断仅基于电子管理测试,该测试由评估字形-音素对应关系的两项任务组成。为了检验丹麦诊断测试是否足以识别患有阅读障碍的大学生,我们比较了239名丹麦大学生在三个单词水平测试(低频单词阅读、高频单词阅读和拼写听写)中的识字困难和阅读障碍测试的表现,以及分别为220、212和218名学生的单独对照组的表现。结果显示,61%被丹麦诊断测试标记为“非阅读障碍”的学生在三分之二的单词水平测试中表现明显不如对照组。在识字困难的自我报告方面,被诊断测试标记为“非阅读障碍”的学生与被标记为“阅读障碍者”的学生无法区分。“这些发现表明,丹麦目前诊断阅读障碍的方法过于狭隘,增加一些简单的单词阅读和拼写测试可以最大限度地减少忽视需要识字支持的学生的风险。
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
Identifying dyslexia at the university: assessing phonological coding is not enough

A dyslexia diagnosis in Denmark can have significant consequences for individuals, as support is not available to others with reading difficulties. Currently, the diagnosis is given solely on the basis of an electronically administered test consisting of two tasks assessing grapheme-phoneme correspondences. To examine whether the Danish diagnostic test is sufficient to identify university students with dyslexia, we compared the performance of 239 Danish university students who reported literacy difficulties and were tested for dyslexia with the Danish diagnostic test on three word-level tests (low-frequency word reading, high-frequency word reading and spelling to dictation) with the performance of separate control groups for each test: 220, 212 and 218 students, respectively. The results showed that 61% of students labelled “not dyslexic” by the Danish diagnostic test performed significantly worse than controls on at least two out of three word-level tests. In terms of self-report of literacy difficulties, students labelled “not dyslexic” by the diagnostic test were indistinguishable from those labelled “dyslexic.” These findings suggest that the current method of diagnosing dyslexia in Denmark is too narrow and that adding a few simple tests of word reading and spelling would minimize the risk of overlooking students in need of literacy support.

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
Annals of Dyslexia
Annals of Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
The mental health and social emotional skills of students with different learning difficulties in China. Correction: Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among adolescents in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis with a focus on content‑area reading. Early akshara knowledge in beginner readers in Sinhala: a cross-sectional study. Reading subtyping of Arabic-speaking university students: a contribution to the accuracy vs. rate model of dyslexia. The effects of orthography, phonology, semantics, and working memory on the reading comprehension of children with and without reading dyslexia.
×
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