An unresolved question in early screening is whether test-based or teacher-based assessments should form the basis of the classification of children at risk of educational failure. Available structured teacher rating scales are lacking in predictive validity, and teacher predictions of students likely to experience reading difficulties have yielded disappointing true positive rates, with teachers failing to identify the majority of severely disabled readers. For this study, three educational screening instruments were developed: (a) a single teacher rating, categorizing children into three levels of reading ability (advanced, average, poor); (b) a 15-item teacher questionnaire designed to measure students' cognitive and language ability, attentional and behavioral characteristics, and academic performance; and (c) a battery of language and reading tests that are predictive of, or correlate with, reading failure. The concurrent validity of each instrument was assessed in a sample of 312 Australian schoolchildren from kindergarten, Year 1, and Year 2. Students were assessed at the end of the 1989 school year after having completed 1, 2, or 3 years of schooling. The results suggest that the nature of the skills required for success in reading changes in the first 3 years of schooling. Both teachers and tests concur more closely as children progress through the elementary years and as the risk behavior (reading) becomes more accessible to direct measurement. Carefully focused teacher rating scales may be a cost-effective means of identifying children at risk of reading failure. Improved teacher rating scales should be developed and used to assist in the early screening process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adelman, H. (1982). Identifying learning problems at an early age: A critical appraisal. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11, 255–261.
2.
Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.
3.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1982). Classification decisions in learning disabilities. Educational and Psychological Research, 2, 117–129.
4.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 394–398.
5.
Andrews, R.J., Elkins, J., Berry, P.B., & Burge, J.A. (1979). A survey of special education in Australia: Provisions, needs and priorities in the education of children with handicaps and learning difficulties. Queensland: Fred and Eleanor Schonell Educational Research Centre, University of Queensland.
6.
Bakker, D.J. (1984). The brain as dependent variable. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 6, 1–18.
7.
Bochner, S. (1987). Who should receive special education? Issues in identification, classification and incidence. In J. Ward, S. Bochner, Y. Center, L. Outhred, & M. Pieterse (Eds.), Educating children with special needs in regular classrooms: An Australian perspective (pp. 1–9). Sydney, Australia: Special Education Centre, Macquarie University.
8.
Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour (2nd ed.)Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann Educational Books.
9.
Doherty, P.J. (1982). Strategies and initiatives for special education in N.S.W. Sydney, Australia: Department of Education.
10.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
Elliott, C., Murray, D., & Pearson, L. (1983). British ability scales-Revised. Windsor, England: NFER Nelson.
12.
Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Algozzine, B. (1983). Impact of different definitions of learning disabilities on the number of students identified. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 341–352.
13.
Feshbach, S., Adelman, H., & Fuller, W. (1974). Early identification of children with high risk of reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 639–644.
14.
Fletcher, J.M., & Satz, P. (1984). Teacher versus test-based predictions of reading achievement. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 9, 193–203.
15.
Fogelman, K. (Ed.). (1983). Growing up in Great Britain. Papers from the National Child Development Study. London: Mac-millan.
16.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19(3), 137–148.
17.
Gibbs, D.P., & Cooper, E.B. (1989). Prevalence of communication disorders in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 60–63.
18.
Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Lloyd, J. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Hoge, R., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher based judgments of academic achievements. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297–313.
20.
Jorm, A., Share, D., McLean, R., & Matthews, R. (1986). Cognitive factors at school entry predictive of specific reading retardation and general reading backwardness. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27(1), 45–54.
21.
Kenny, D.T. (1987). Grade repetition in NSW government primary schools: An evaluation of frequency, patterns and outcomes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
22.
Kochanek, T., Kabacoff, R., & Lipsitt, L. (1990). Early identification of developmentally disabled and at-risk preschool children. Exceptional Children, 56, 528–538.
23.
LaTorre, R.A., Hawkhead, F., Kawahira, R., & Bilow, L. (1982). Kindergarten screening pilot project in Vancouver schools 1979–1980: A two-year follow up of the McCarthy Screening Test. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 6, 23–41.
Lindsay, G.A., & Weddell, K. (1982). The early identification of educationally “at-risk” children revisited. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 212–217.
27.
Mann, V.A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 811–816.
28.
Mann, V.A., & Liberman, I.Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592–598.
29.
Margolis, H., Sheridan, R., & Lemanowicz, J. (1981). The efficiency of Myklebust's Pupil Rating Scale for detecting reading and arithmetic difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 267–268, 302–303.
30.
Morris, R.D. (1988). Classification of learning disabilities: Old problems and new approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 789–794.
31.
Myklebust, H.R. (1971). The Pupil Rating Scale: Screening for learning disabilities. New York: Grune & Stratton.
32.
Prior, M.R. (1989). Reading disability: “Normative” or “pathological.”. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 135–158.
33.
Rourke, B.P. (1982). Central processing deficiencies in children: Toward a developmental neuropsychological model. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 1–18.
34.
Satz, P., & Fletcher, J.M. (1988). Early identification of learning disabled children: An old problem revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 824–829.
35.
Shinn, M., Tindal, G., & Spira, D. (1987). Special education referrals as an index to teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests?. Exceptional Children, 54, 32–40.
36.
Stanovich, K. (1988). Explaining the difference between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–613.
37.
Stevenson, H.W., Parker, T., Wilkinson, A., Hegion, A., & Fish, E. (1976). Predictive value of teachers' ratings of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 507–517.
38.
Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of stages?Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.
39.
Thorndike, R., Hagen, E., & Sattler, J. (1986). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
40.
Torgesen, J. (1986). Learning disabilities theory: Its current state and future prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 399–407.
41.
Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
42.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
43.
Yates, F. (1971). Sampling methods for censuses and surveys (3rd ed.). London, England: Griffin.
44.
Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of phomenic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177.
45.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., & Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
