The convenient and popular "years below grade" formula conventionally used to define reading disability operates in an irregular manner and gives a picture of "disability" which is difficult to distinquish from normal variation in human ability. It also causes the prevalence of reading disorders to appear larger as years of schooling increase. Other measures give a more conservative estimate of the prevalence of disability and they may be more significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Durost, W. N., Manual for Interpreting Metropolitan Achievement Tests. Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc., New York, 1962.
2.
Kelley, T. L., Madden, R., Gardner, E. F, Rudman, H. C., Stanford Achievement Test. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1964.
3.
Lloyd, D. N., Reading Achievement and Its Relationship to Academic Performance. Laboratory Paper Number 27, Mental Health Study Center, National Institute of Mental Health, Prince Georges County, Maryland.
4.
Malmquist, E., Factors Related to Reading Disabilities in the First Grade of the Elementary School, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1960.
5.
Myklebust, H. R., Progress in Learning Disabilities, Volume I, Grune & Stratton, 1968.
6.
Walker, L. C., & Edwin, M., Familial Pattern of Expression of Specific Reading Disability in a Population Sample, Part I, Prevalence, Distribution and Persistence. Bulletin of the Orton Society, Vol. XV, pp. 12–24, 1965.
