1. Screening for Dyslexia Subtitle

2. Why care? The poor first grader almost invariably continues to be a poor reader (Torgesen & Burgess, 1998; Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, & Fletcher, 1996) The Matthew Effect Effects: –Negative attitudes about reading –Reduced opportunities for vocabulary growth –Missed opportunities for comprehension growth –Less actual practice reading

3. Is Dyslexia something unique? It is unique only in its severity This group represents the lowest end of a normal distribution of reading ability However, these students show differences in brain function when reading And, these students need highly explicit, carefully designed instruction to address their reading development

4. Who are we talking about? Those who are at risk for reading disabilities –May be learning disabled –May be disadvantaged –May be ESL

5. Preventative vs. Remedial Models Fences or ambulances?

6. Facts: The desired outcome is solid reading comprehension Most children who become poor readers have early and continuing difficulty identifying printed words The most common cause of word reading difficulties is weakness in the ability to process the phonological features of language Two types: –Only poor in phonological features –Also weak in general language skills (often poor or disadvantaged children) With the right interventions, it is possible to maintain critical word reading skills for most children who were at risk, at almost average levels, if we intervene in Kindergarten or first grade

7. Issues on accuracy of identification False positives –Not really reading disabilities –About 45% –Does it do harm? False negatives –Show up later as reading disabled –About 22% Differs by assessment used And length of time child has been in school

8. Attributes of an ideal screening measure Criterion validity –connections between performance on screening and an established level of reading (concurrent or future) Classification accuracy: a balance of sensitivity and specificity –Sensitivity –Accuracy of screening to identify true positives –Specificity –Accuracy of screening to identify true negatives

9. Issues on accuracy of identification Use of more measures will yield more accurate results but adding too many tests doesn’t add that much Two or three measures are enough You need different measures at different grade levels

10. Multiple Measures You need to keep monitoring progress (RTI?)

11. Potential indicators of dyslexia or other reading disabilities (NJAC 6A:14) include, but shall not be limited to, –difficulty in acquiring language skills –inability to comprehend oral or written language –difficulty in rhyming words –difficulty in naming letters –difficulty recognizing letters, –difficulty matching letters to sounds –difficulty blending sounds when speaking and reading words –difficulty recognizing and remembering sight words –consistent transposition of number sequences –letter reversals, inversions, and substitutions and in replication of content.

12. Second Half of Kindergarten Letter recognition Phonological awareness including segmentation, blending and deletion Non-word spelling Digit namingRapid naming

13. Letter Recognition Best predictor Almost as successful at predicting future reading as an entire reading readiness test Best used in Kindergarten Letter sound knowledge is best in first grade

14. Testing Letter Recognition Recognition of letters –Show cards with letters on them and ask what letter is it –Woodcock Johnson letter identification subtest is not a good assessment as it also includes differing fonts

15. Phonemic awareness Sound comparison tests –Which word begins with the same sound as bat? fan, boy or toz –Which ends with the same sound? –Which has same middle sound? Phonemic segmentation –Say the sounds in cat one at a time Phonemic blending –What word do these sounds make? f/a/n

16. Tests of Phonemic awareness http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/~specconn/page/instruction/r a/case/caseb/pdf/caseb_scene1_2.pdf Free on line testhttp://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/~specconn/page/instruction/r a/case/caseb/pdf/caseb_scene1_2.pdf The Phonological Awareness Test 2 (PAT 2): standardized test from Linguisystems

17. Tests of phonemic awareness recommended by LDOnline.org Phonological Awareness: Instructional and Assessment Guidelines By Chard and Dickson Article 6254

18. Test of phonological awareness- kindergarten (Second Half of Kindergarten; Screen). This measure of phonemic sensitivity strongly predicts which students will demonstrate high segmenting ability following small-group instruction in phonemic awareness (Torgesen & Davis, 1996). The measure consists of one form with 10 items requiring students to indicate which of three words (represented by pictures) have the same first sound as a target word and 10 items that require students to indicate which of four words (represented by pictures) begins with a different first sound than the other three. The measure is administered to small groups of 6 to 10 children and is untimed. Students receive raw scores that are normed.

19. Nonword spelling (Second Half of Kindergarten; Screen). This measure strongly predicts which kindergarten students will demonstrate growth in blending and segmenting after small-group phonological awareness instruction. Five nonwords (feg, rit, mub, gof, pid) comprise the measure. Students receive one point for each phoneme that they represent correctly in the spelling.

20. First Grade Letter sounds Phonemic awareness Word reading Sight word knowledge Rapid letter naming

21. Once children begin to read: The best predictors are measures of phonemic decoding efficiency and text reading fluency No longer need to measure RAN or phonemic awareness

22. Testing Letter Sounds Recognition of sounds made by letters –Show cards with letters and ask what sounds they make –Sound decks in Orton programs do this with answers on back!

23. Measures for word reading: Sight words Use a sight word list Word identification test in Woodcock Reading Mastery test Reading subtest in the Wide Range Achievement Test Dolch list by grade: http://www.dolchword.net/printables/All220DolchWordsByGradeFre q.pdf http://www.dolchword.net/printables/All220DolchWordsByGradeFre q.pdf

24. Digit naming rate (Second Half of Kindergarten; Screen). This measure strongly predicts which kindergarten students are likely to demonstrate growth in blending after small-group phonological awareness instruction. The measure consists of six rows with five single digits per row on an 8 " x 11 " card. The students are timed as they name the digits as fast as they can, beginning at the top and continuing to the bottom. Students complete two trials using cards with differently arranged numbers. The score is based on the average time for the two series.

25. Yopp-SingerTest of phoneme segmentation (Second Half of Kindergarten, First Grade; Screen). This test (Yopp, 1995) consists of 22 items and requires students to separately articulate each phoneme in the presented words. The student receives credit only if all sounds in a word are presented correctly. The student does not receive partial credit for saying /c/ or /c/ /at/ for cat. One feature that differentiates this screening measure from others is that students receive feedback after each response. If the child's response is correct, the test administrator says, "That's right." If the student gives an incorrect response, the examiner tells the student the correct response. Moreover, if the student gives an incorrect response, the examiner writes the error. Recording the errors helps the teacher decide what remediation the student requires. The student's score is the number of items correctly segmented into individual phonemes. The test is administered individually and requires about 5 to 10 minutes per child.

26. Bruce test of phoneme deletion (Second Half of Kindergarten; Screen). The Bruce (1964) test assesses phoneme deletion, a more difficult and compound skill than segmenting (Yopp, 1995). The measure consists of 30 one- to three-syllable words drawn from words familiar to children between the ages of 5 and 61/2. The examiner asks students to delete one phoneme from the beginning, middle, or end of a word and to say the word that remains. The positions of deleted phonemes are randomly ordered throughout the test. The test is individually administered and requires 10 minutes to administer.

27. Auditory analysis test (Second Half of Kindergarten; Screen). This measure (Rosner & Simon, 1971, cited in MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995) consists of 40 items arranged in order of difficulty from deletion of syllables in compound words to deletion of syllables in multisyllabic words to deletion of phonemes in beginning, middle, and end positions. The teacher asks the student to delete a syllable or phoneme and say the word that is left. The measure is administered individually.

28. Rapid letter naming, dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (Second Half of Kindergarten, First Grade; Screen). The Rapid Letter Naming, DIBELS (Kaminski & Good, 1996) is another of many measures used to assess the rapid letter-naming ability of students. The measure has 18 alternate forms and consists of 104 randomly selected upper- and lowercase letters presented on one page. The measure is given individually, and students have 1 minute to name as many letters as possible in the order that they appear on the page.

29. Rapid Automatic Naming(RAN) Research clear that naming speed is an important preditor of reading above and beyond phonological awareness It may be a phonological skill, but outside those measured by tests of phonological awareness Rapid naming of letters (as opposed to objects or numbers) is the most predictive of reading skill Letter naming results in greater activation of the same area of the brain as phonological processing

30. Phoneme segmentation fluency, DIBELS (End of Kindergarten, First Grade; Screen, Monitor Progress). The Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, DIBELS (Kaminski & Good, 1996) is one of many segmenting measures. The measure has 18 alternate forms. Each form consists of 10 words, each with two or three phonemes, randomly selected from words in the pre-primer and primer levels of the Scribner basal reading series. The measure is administered individually and is timed. Unlike the Yopp-Singer Test, students do not receive feedback on their responses but do receive scores for partially correct answers. In other words, for cat, a student receives a score of 1 for saying /c/, a score of 2 for saying /c/ /at/, or a score of 3 for saying /c/ /a/ /t/. Because this measure assesses the number of correct phonemes per minute, it is sensitive to growth and is, therefore, appropriate for both screening and monitoring progress.

31. Second Grade Word reading Sight word knowledge ComprehensionFluency Text comprehension

32. Measures for word reading: Phonetic reading Word attack subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test

33. Measures for word reading: Word Reading Fluency

34. Over Second Grade

35. Other measure: Questionnaire: 28 questions for parents Specificity.62; Sensitivity.85 Health –Born at term, no hearing or visual impairment, no ear infections, chronic illnesses, or physical disabilities, asthma, allergies, left-handedness Motor Skills –Crawling, walking, drawing, building blocks, puzzles, playground, go for walks, finding the way Language Development –Development, comprehension, vocabulary, pronunciation Special Needs –Received? Referred? Considered? Heredity –Dyslexia, language impairment, mathematics impairment, visuo-spatial impairment within nearest biological family

36. Other measures: Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children Vocabulary subtest –Significantly predicted real word identification skills

37. Other measures: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Listening Comprehension subtest –Significantly predicted word identification skills

38. Short term memory issues? Digit span performance Memory uses phonological processing –Recall how it sounds, not how it looks Often perform 3 to 4 years younger

39. MeasureValidityReliability Test of Phonological Awareness-Kindergarten (Torgesen & Bryant, 1993) Concurrent validity with segmenting and sound isolation(.50-.55); Concurrent validity with word identification and word analysis of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (.60-.66); Predictive validity (.59-.75) Internal consistency (.90-.91); Total score reliability (Cronbach's Alpha =.91) Nonword Spelling (Torgesen & Davis, 1996) Internal consistency (.88) Digit Naming Rate (Torgesen & Davis, 1996) Split-half reliability (.91) Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (Yopp, 1995)Construct validity with subtests of California Achievement Test (.38-.78); Predictive of reading and spelling in Grades 1-6 (-.05-.55; 16 of the 25 correlations were positive and significant) Cronbach's Alpha (.95) Bruce Phoneme Deletion Test (Bruce, 1964)Predictive validity to learning to read novel words (.67)Cronbach's Alpha (.92) Auditory Analysis Test (Rosner & Simon, 1971, cited in MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Yopp,1988) Predictive validity (accounted for 25% of the variance in word identification and spelling skills at age 17); Construct validity for compound phonemic awareness Cronbach's Alpha (.78) Rapid Letter Naming (DIBELS)Concurrent criterion-related with the Standard Diagnostic Reading Test (.50) and oral reading fluency (.45) Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula (.83 for first grade) Segmenting Fluency (DIBELS) Alternate form reliability (.60 Spearman Prophecy formula) Oral Reading Fluency (Children's Educational Services, 1987) Coefficient with Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, and Peabody Individual Achievement Test (.52-.91) Alternate form reliability (.97) Nonsense Word Fluency (DIBELS; R. H. Good, August 3, 1998, personal communication) Criterion reliability with curriculum-based reading measures (.80) Alternate form reliability (high.80s)

40. Typically, kindergarten students are screened for risk factors in acquiring beginning reading skills in the second semester of kindergarten. Appropriate screening measures for the second semester of kindergarten include measures that are strong predictors of a student's successful response to explicit phonemic awareness instruction or beginning reading acquisition. Such predictors of successful response to segmenting and blending instruction are the Test of Phonological Awareness-Kindergarten (TOPA-K; Torgesen & Bryant, 1993), a Nonword Spelling measure (Torgesen & Davis, 1996), and the Digit Naming Rate (Torgesen & Davis, 1996). Predictors of the successful acquisition of beginning reading skills include automatized naming of colors, objects, numbers, or letters (e.g., Wolf, 1991) and segmenting ability (e.g., Nation & Hulme, 1997; Torgesen et al., 1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Yopp, 1988). Other measures used during the second semester of kindergarten to identify students at risk for not acquiring beginning reading skills include measures of phoneme deletion.