A preschool screening battery was evaluated for effectiveness in identifying children who later would be found to have reading disabilities. The battery was used to evaluate 165 preschool children; 95 of these children were available for 3-yr. follow-up assessment The battery was effective in identifying children at risk for later reading disability by using four different diagnostic criteria. The data suggest that intervention should be directed toward the immature or young boy who shows weaknesses in the preschool acquisition of number concepts and symbol recognition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowerE. M.Early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment: Realities, risks, and possibilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1978, 48, 4–6.
2.
ColliganR. C.Prediction of kindergarten reading success from preschool report of parents. Psychology in the Schools, 1976, 13, 304–308.
3.
ColliganR. C.Concurrent validity of the Mykelbust Pupil Rating Scale in a kindergarten population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 317–320.
4.
ColliganR. C.Predictive utility of the Myklebust Pupil Rating Scale: A two-year follow-up. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 264–267.
5.
ColliganR. C.Prediction of reading difficulty from parental preschool report: A 3-year followup. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 31–37.
6.
ColliganR. C.O'ConnellE. J.Should psychometric screening be made an adjunct to the pediatric preschool examination? An evaluation of studies with 165 young children. Clinical Pediatrics (Philadelphia), 1974, 13, 29–34.
7.
Department of Health, Education, & Welfare.Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 1977, 42, 65082–65085.
8.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtF. C.Jr.Peabody Individual Achievement Test: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1970.
9.
GilmoreJ. V.GilmoreE. C.Gilmore Oral Reading Test: Manual of directions. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968.
10.
HammillD.LeighJ.McNuttG.LarsenS.A new definition of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 336–342.
11.
JastakJ. F.JastakS. R.The Wide Range Achievement Test: Manual of instructions. (Rev. ed.) Wilmington, DE: Guidance Assoc., 1965.
12.
MercerJ. R.SmithJ. M.Subtest estimates of the WISC Full Scale IQ's for children. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, 1972, 47, 1–42.
13.
MyklebustH. R.Progress in learning disabilities. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton, 1968.
14.
ShinnM. R.YsseldykeJ.DenoS.TindalG.A comparison of psychometric and functional differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving. (Research Report 71, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities)Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, March, 1982.
15.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.Teachers' beliefs about LD students. (Research Report 66, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities)Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, January, 1982.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.McGueM.Similarities and differences between underachievers and students labeled learning disabled: Identical twins with different mothers. (Research Report 13, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1979)
