1 9834 11-22

1126 95

95

2

Snows, Burns, & Griffin, 1998

2006

Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1995

199819992000a, 2000b200020032005

2006

Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1995

reading disabilities

DSM-IV, APA, 1994

Hoover Gough1990simple view of readingGough Tunmer1986

Aaron Joshi specific reading disabilities nonspecific reading disabilitieslow ability readerAaron & Joshi, 1992

dyslexia dyslexia reading disabilities Stanovich, 1988; Vellutino, Fletcher, & Snowling, 2004

slow learner Catts

reading disabilitiesCatts & Kamhi, 1999 Googh

dyslexiahyperlexia language learning disabilitiesCatts Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003 Bishop Snowling2004

specific

3

language impairment SLI Y X

no impairmentSLIpoor comprehenderNation2005developmental disorders

Nation Gough Catts

Nation, 2005Nation

Aaron Bishop

+

+

-

+

-

+

- -

Catts& Camhi Bishop

SLI

Aaron

2006

ChallChall, 1996

2007a

2007a

4

2007

2006

Aaron

85

85 CattsAaron

Salvia Ysseldyke1995

screenreferral to Child Study Teamexceptional decisionseligibility decisionscreen

high risk

National Research CouncilSnow

Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998

rapid namingconfrontation naming

5

.33.57

Huang & Hanley, 1997

Visual Form DiscriminationR2=.45

R2=.44IQ R2=.09

Hu & Catts, 1998

20011995

19972007

Speece2005

over-identificationunder- identificationOConnor

OConnor & Jenkins, 1999

2005

Salvia Ysseldyke1995

positive high risk

Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1995

Shinn poor readerShinn, Tindal, & Spira, 1987

10

6

Bahr Fuchs1991difficult-to-teach 40

Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998

207 95

3 3

3-5

363 428 369

4 130 4 124 4 109 363

4 136 4 136 5 156 428

4 131 4 110 4 128 369

(335)

12 397 12 370 13 393 1160 1126

1160

7

34

1126 296

176

IQ85

8

()

1126 148

65 83 296 830

54

28

47

141

54

19

51

28

128

IQ

11

IQ

196

27

45

23

OK

101

.80

.50~.78

.54~.66

PR25 2007

9

AB

A .80 .70.94

.42~.70

PR16

100R(1998)-C1252005a

.42~.76

2007a

G34 , G56 G79 .60~.81.43~.79.39~.69

2007b

.77~.78.92.64

.

2007b

B1, B2, B34, B57, B89 .90.80

.50~.78.46~.77

1997

6

7 .57.97 .832002 WISC

WISC IQ

10

94 10-11

A12 A39 A A39 A

2-310% 100R C125

119 26.8% 65 54

FIQ85 IQ85 196

95

excel

SPSS 95

60

118 7

3

.614.01

11

75.90% (296/390)37.95% (148/390) 13.84% (54/390) 95 84

88.42% (84/95) 47 49.47% (47/95)

296(75.90%) 84(88.42%)

148(37.95%) 47(49.47%)

54(13.84%) 36(37.89%)

390 95

54 13.84%(54/390) 18.24%(54/296)

36.49%(54/148)

36 36/95, 37.89% 42.85%36/84 78.26%36/4757.14%

296 148 1126 17.46%13.14%

21.96% 36.48%

Shinn, Tindal, & Spira ,1987

296 65 17.46% 21.96%

148 54 13.14% 36.48%

84 28.37%84/296

12

47 31.75%47/148

50% 47/94 36.36%84/231

(sensitivity)

88.42%(84/95)

49.47%(47/95)

a b a b

296 231 84 28.37% 36.36%

148 94 47 31.75% 50%

5288.1% 3050.84% 23 (38.98%) 32 88.88% 17

47.22% 13 36.11%

2 .95(2) =. 346, P > .05,

29(30.52%) 19(20%) 48

7(7.32%) 4(4.21%)) 11

23(24.21%) 13(13.68%) 36

59(62.1%) 36(37.89%) 95

10(62.5%10/16) 11

(68.75%11/16) 531.25%

5/16 44

(95.65%44/46) 22

(47.82%22/46) 20(43.48%

20/46) 30

(90.9%30/33) 14

(42.42%14/33) 11(33.33%

11/33)

2 .95(4) = 11.18, P

13

< .05

G2 G4 G7

5 24 19 48

6 2 3 11

5 20 11 36

16 46 33 95

2880%28/35 22 62.85%22/35

1542.85%15/35 34 91.89%34/37 14 37.83%14/37 11 29.72%11/37 22 95.65%22/23 11 47.82%11/23 10 43.47%10/23

2 .95(4) = 6.481, P < .05

28:22

34:14 22:11 2

2.429.72%

13 23 12 48

7 3 1 11

15 11 10 36

35 37 23 95

207

ANOVA

14

F 6.857~15.82P.01p=.065

H(1995)

H.1143.579P.05

M(SD)

M(SD) MSD

F

G2 794.83(247.6) 968.75(350.7) 358.04(367.2) 10.52**

G4 937.70(227.44) 1468.77(472.24) 1344.70(616.48) 2.86

G7 2857.65(683.18) 2225.04(909.59) 1594.06(1052.52) 6.86**

G2 17.09(2.30) 12.21(1.27) 11.44(4.75) 12.03**

G4 13.80(3.56) 12.11(4.58) 9.08(2.98) 5.61**

G7 22.75(6.47) 17.52(4.99) 15.82 (6.44) 5.83**

** P

15

> .05) 81.48%, 88.89%, 91.6% 51.85%,

46.67%, 52.17%

13(13.7%) 24(25.3%) 11(11.6%) 48

5(5.2%) 5(5.2%) 1(1.1%) 11

9(9.5%) 16(16.8%) 11(11.6%) 36

27(28.4%) 45(47.4%) 23(24.2%) 95

16

82% 57.14%

62.5%

Gerber Semmel (1984)

Shinn Shinn et al., 1987

Gerber

Shinn

Shinn

Shinn Bahr

2005b

Shinn

ShinnShinn et al., 1987

4.5~156 3000 2300

10

17

92

2003

Shinn

Shinn

Shinn

Bahr

.88

37.5%

50%

10%

Gaber

18

2005

2005291-24

1999171-12

2007

32(4)1-18. 1995

2000a1979-104

2000b19105-126

2006

1997

729-47 2007

1998K-316

65-86 1998100R

20032003 11 23

2005a C125

2005b--

2007a

2007b

1995

2005

28123-144. 2006

(2002)

WISC-III --

49(2)155-182 2003

241-14 2007a

2007b

19

1997

2001

21215-237. 2000

18157-172 Aaron, P. G., & Joshi, R. M. (1992). Reading

problems: Consultation and remediation. New York: Guilford.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diag-nostic and statistical manual of mental dis-orders. 4th ed. Washington D. C.: Autor.

Bahr, M. W., & Fuchs, D. (1991). Are teachers perceptions of difficult-to-teach students ra-cially biased? School Psychology Review, 20, 599-608.

Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). De-velopmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 130, 858-886.

Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of in-dividual differences in reading related abili-ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151-164.

Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (1999). Causes of reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading dis-abilities (pp. 95-127). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Chall, J. (1996). Stages of reading development. 2nd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Com.

Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: reconceptualizing the referral

process. Educational Psychologist, 19(3), 137-148,

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.

Hoover,W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple viewof reading. Reading and Writing: An In-terdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.

Hu, C. F., & Catts, H. W. (1998). The role of phonological processing in early reading ability: What we can learn from Chinese. Scientific Study of Reading, 2, 55-79.

Huang, H. S., & Hanley, J. R. (1997). A longitu-dinal study of phonological awarness, visual skills, and Chinese reading acquisisiton among first-graders in Taiwan. Interna-tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 249-268.

Nation, K. (2005). Why reading comprehension failed: Insights from developmental disorder. Topics in Language Disorder, 25, 21-32.

OConnor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). Predic-tion of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Study of Reading, 3, 159-197.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). Assessment. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Shinn, M. R., Tindal, G. A., & Spira, D. A. (1987). Special education referral as an index teacher tolerance: Are teacher imperfect test. Excep-tional Children, 54, 32-40.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington D. C.: National Acad-emy Press.

Speece, D. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some

20

thoughts on screening children for secondary intervention. Journal of Learning Disabili-ties, 38, 487-493.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differ-ences between the dyslexic and the gar-den-variety poor reader: the phonologi-cal-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Snowling, M., (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40.

2008.06.03 2008.11.03

21

Bulletin of Special Education 2009, 34(1), 1-22

A Study of the Identification Process for Students with Reading Disabilities: Screening versus Teacher Referral

Hung Li-Yu Professor, Dept. of Special Education, National Taiwan

Normal University

Chen Shu-Li Associate Professor, Dept. of Education,

National Taitung University

Wang Chiung-ChuAssociate Professor, Dept. of

Special Education, National Kaohsiung Normal

University

Fang Chin-Yia Associate Professor, Center for Teacher

Education, National Kaohsiung Normal

University

Chang Yu-Wen Associate Professor, Dept. of Education, National Taipei

Education University

Chen Mei-Fang Professor, Dept. of Special Education, National Taiwan

Normal University

Ko Hwa-Wei Professor, Graduate Institute of

Learning and Instruction, National Central University

ABSTRACT

Early identification of high-risk reading-disabled children is obviously important. Teacher referral and screening by means of tests are the two major ways of detecting students who are likely to have reading disabilities. Kos team proposed the six-stage process to identify the RD students with the assessment they conducted in the same pro-ject: (1) screening by reading competence, (2) excluding other factors, (3) detecting high-risk RD students, (4) excluding by IQ, (5) identifying the subtypes of RD, (6) diag-nosing the cognitive profile. Most schools take teacher referral in the first stage instead of the screening by the tests. Therefore, this study investigated the effectiveness of the two approaches in the first stage of the six-stage process of identifying RD students pro-posed by Ko (2006), There are 1126 students participating in this study; they were se-lected from three primary schools and three junior high schools in three different counties of Taiwan. When screened with group reading tests, close to 90% of these students were found to have RDs; however, the method of teacher referral identified only 88% of the students as having RDs, meaning the latter method was lightly less sensitive. It was also found that there are few differences (with regard to reading ability) between

22

screened RD students and the RD students referred by teachers. Schools tend to prefer teacher referral, yet the fact that this method appears to be less sensitive than screening is a crucial issue, especially in southern and eastern Taiwan, where a higher proportion of RD students fail to be detected by teachers. Teacher referral is subject to the subjective prejudices or preferences of teachers. Yet while screening is highly recommended as the first step in this identification process, taking teachers referrals into account with younger students is also recommended. Other recommendations are made regarding the practice of identifying RD students and possible areas for further research. Keywords: reading disability, early identification, screening, reading tests, teachers re-

ferral, Kos 6-step process of identification of RD