Author(s)
Tops, WimPP02000090602040802000662262Callens, MaaikeCA10001997305071802000536970
Lammertyn, JanPP590019922781488010012775280000-0002-1263-1059
Van Hees, ValérieCA10PP050001512687698020001258330000-0002-0894-8168
Brysbaert, MarcPP028010011297050000-0002-3645-3189
Keywords
Medicine and Health SciencesDEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
SELECTIVE METAANALYSIS
READING DISABILITIES
PROCESSING DEFICITS
DISABLED READERS
ADULT DYSLEXICS
Adult dyslexia
Classification
Cross validation
Diagnosis
Higher education
Prediction
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2096692/file/6769975Abstract
An increasing number of students with dyslexia enter higher education. As a result, there is a growing need for standardized diagnosis. Previous research has suggested that a small number of tests may suffice to reliably assess students with dyslexia, but these studies were based on post hoc discriminant analysis, which tends to overestimate the percentage of systematic variance, and were limited to the English language (and the Anglo-Saxon education system). Therefore, we repeated the research in a non-English language (Dutch) and we selected variables on the basis of a prediction analysis. The results of our study confirm that it is not necessary to administer a wide range of tests to diagnose dyslexia in (young) adults. Three tests sufficed: Word reading, word spelling, and phonological awareness, in line with the proposal that higher education students with dyslexia continue to have specific problems with reading and writing. We also show that a traditional postdiction analysis selects more variables of importance than the prediction analysis. However, these extra variables explain study-specific variance and do not result in more predictive power of the model.An increasing number of students with dyslexia enter higher education. As a result, there is a growing need for standardized diagnosis. Previous research has suggested that a small number of tests may suffice to reliably assess students with dyslexia, but these studies were based on post hoc discriminant analysis, which tends to overestimate the percentage of systematic variance, and were limited to the English language (and the Anglo-Saxon education system). Therefore, we repeated the research in a non-English language (Dutch) and we selected variables on the basis of a prediction analysis. The results of our study confirm that it is not necessary to administer a wide range of tests to diagnose dyslexia in (young) adults. Three tests sufficed: Word reading, word spelling, and phonological awareness, in line with the proposal that higher education students with dyslexia continue to have specific problems with reading and writing. We also show that a traditional postdiction analysis selects more variables of importance than the prediction analysis. However, these extra variables explain study-specific variance and do not result in more predictive power of the model.
A1
Date
2012Type
textIdentifier
oai:search.ugent.be:pug01:2096692https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2096692/file/6769975