Analysis of patterns of performance on the subtests of the Meeting Street School Screening Test administered in first grade was expected to be a better predictor of later placement in a learning disabilities program than the recommended cut-off score. The hypothesis was not supported. Use of subtest scatter predicted learning disability placements less accurately than chance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Boehm, A.E., & Sandburg, B.R. (1982). Assessment of the preschool child. In C.R. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 82–120). New York: Wiley.
2.
Cross, L., & Goin, K.W (1977). Identifying handicapped children: A guide to casefinding, screening, diagnosis, and evaluation. New York: Walker.
3.
Federici, L., Sims, H., & Bashian, A. (1976). Use of the Meeting Street Screening Test and the Myklebust Pupil Rating Scale with first grade black urban children. Psychology in the Schools, 13, 386–389.
4.
Hainsworth, P.K., & Siqueland, M.L. (1986). Early identification of children with learning disabilities: The Meeting Street School Screening Test. Providence, RI: Crippled Children and Adults of Rhode Island, Inc.
5.
Jarman, R.P. (1978, June). Development and validation of cognitive screening instruments. Paper presented at the World Congress on Future Special Education, Stirling, Scotland.
6.
Keogh, B. (1977). Early identification, selective perception or perceptive selection?Academic Therapy, 12, 267–274.
7.
McKinney, J.D. (1984). The search for subtypes of specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities17, 43–50.
8.
Swanson, B., Payne, D., & Jackson, B. (1981). Aprediaive validity study of the Metropolitan Readiness Test and Meeting Street School Screening Test against first grade Metropolitan Achievement Test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 575–578.
