Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glaub, V. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kamphaus, R. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evaluating the Congruence among Methods of Reading Disability Identification

Vincent E. Glaub

University of Georgia

Randy W. Kamphaus

University of Georgia

Diagnostic procedures used to identify reading disabilities must meet acceptable psychometric standards and produce groups of subjects who possess known characteristics of the disorder. The issue addressed in this study is whether there are significant differences in the numbers of children identified as reading disabled according to an achievement cut-off method and a regression method of discrepancy analysis. These approaches then are compared to clinic diagnosis and other criteria. The achievement cut-off approach identified a significantly higher number of subjects as reading disabled than did the other methods. This approach also resulted in significant reading-disabled/non-disabled group differences that were not seen when groups were formed using the regression method. The achievement cut-off approach had a lower level of agreement with clinic diagnosis than did the regression method and met fewer of the evaluative criteria than did the regression method. Use of the achievement cut-off approach resulted in the apparent overidentification of reading disabilities in the current sample, thus this approach cannot be recommended for use without more supportive research.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 12, No. 3, 270-282 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/073428299401200306


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Learn DisabilHome page
C. A. Sofie and C. A. Riccio
A Comparison of Multiple Methods for the Identification of Children with Reading Disabilities
J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2002; 35(3): 234 - 244.
[Abstract] [PDF]