Profiles of Strengths and Weaknesses in Dyslexia and Other Learning Difficulties

DYSLEXIA
Published online 23 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/dys.342
&
Profiles of Strengths and
Weaknesses in Dyslexia and
Other Learning Difficulties
John Everatt
*
, Sally Weeks and Peter Brooks
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK
A total of 83 children with different special educational needs (SEN)
assessments were contrasted with a control group N 40 without
special needs on measures that aimed to identify potential areas of
strengths as well as weaknesses in these SEN groups. Carefully
selected groups of dyslexics, dyspraxics, children with specific
language difficulties, moderate learning disabilities, attention
deficits and emotional/behavioural disorders were assessed on
measures of literacy, phonological and verbal skills, non-verbal
ability, problem behaviour scales and cognitive interference. Scores
indicated that individual measures were relatively poor at
specifically differentiating one SEN group from the controls and
that all SEN groups presented evidence of literacy deficits despite
potentially different causes for such acquisition difficulties. For
most of the six SEN groups targeted, assessments that considered
strengths as well as weaknesses provided a profile that specifically
differentiated the group from the controls in contrast to the other
SEN groups tested. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: special educational needs groups; cognitive assessments; profiles of strengths
and weaknesses
INTRODUCTION
T
he research reported in this paper investigated whether cognitive
assessments that identify areas of strength, as well as areas of weakness,
can support the differentiation of children with potentially different types
of learning difficulties from normal level achievement. Although such cognitive
assessments are common in Educational Psychology practice when attempting to
identify learning difficulties such as dyslexia (Kaufman, 1994; Thomson, 2001;
Turner, 1999), their use has been questioned (e.g. Reed, 1999; Solity, 2000). It may
be that such assessments are unnecessary and resources could be better used to
*
Correspondence to: John Everatt, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey,
Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK. E-mail: j.everatt@surrey.ac.uk
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DYSLEXIA 14: 1641 (2008)
support learning for all children (Solity, 2000)}dyslexia, for example, could
simply be determined by underachievement in literacy learning with no further
assessment of functioning being necessary. Alternatively, it may be that detailed
assessments will provide a way of distinguishing, from normal development,
groups of children with different types of special educational needs (SEN),
thereby leading to better educational support and practice. The aim of the work
reported in this paper was to inform those assessment practices. The main process
underpinning such assessments is the contrasting of the performance of the
individual being assessed against normal functioning; where normal functioning
is based on levels of performance of average individuals at an appropriate stage of
comparison (e.g. same age, same school level, etc.). The study reported in this
paper was designed to mirror that practice by contrasting the performance of
different groups of SEN children against control children who would be expected
to be performing at normal levels of functioning. The main focus of the study was
the specific identification of dyslexics against normal functioning, as compared to
groups of children with other SEN contrasted against the same control-level
performance on identical measures of ability/disability. Measures of ability/
disability were chosen to represent a range of educational and cognitive tests
typical of Educational Psychology practice. The main question was whether
measures of poor functioning could specifically identify dyslexics from control
performance in this assessment context, or whether areas of relative strength
(good to average functioning) aided this identification process.
One reason why cognitive-based assessments have been questioned is the
loss of confidence in methods of assessment that aim to identify dyslexia through
a discrepancy between general IQ and reading ability (see discussions in special
issue of Dyslexia, Volume 2, Number 3). There are specific aspects of dyslexia
that may make measures of global IQ inappropriate (see Miles, 1996) leading
to an underestimation of the potential of the child or a masking of areas of
strength that may be used in compensatory strategies. Additionally, a number
of researchers (Siegel, 1988, 1989; Stanovich, 1991, 1996) have argued that
intelligence is irrelevant as a predictor of literacy deficits. This position typically
sees poor language skills as leading to problems with phonological processing
which negatively impact on word recognition and, hence, reading ability.
Consistent with this theory, considerable evidence indicates that phonological
skills are a significant factor in the successful development of word-level
literacy skills (Adams, 1990; Bruck, 1993; Cataldo & Ellis, 1988; Ehri, 1992;
Frith, 1995; Gillon, 2004; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, &
Taylor, 1998; Shankweiler & Crain, 1986; Snowling, 2000) and that early
phonological training, together with suitable linkage to early orthography and
literacy experience, leads to improvements in reading and spelling (Bryant &
Bradley, 1985; Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993). Such
studies offer considerable support to a causal relationship between phonological
skills and early word reading/spelling. Given that intelligence is not an
important factor in the development of these phonological processes, there
is no reason for treating it as a cause of reading (or spelling) difficulties. High
IQ and low IQ poor readers should be treated identically since both suffer the
same underlying causes of their difficulties in literacy. Indeed, a great deal
of evidence has shown that there is little or no difference between high IQ
and low IQ poor readers in many literacy-related measures (see Ellis,
Strengths and Weaknesses in Dyslexia 17
DOI: 10.1002/dys
McDougall, & Monk, 1996; Share, 1996; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stanovich &
Stanovich, 1997).
However, these views do not consider high IQ and low IQ poor readers to be
identical (see discussions in the special issue of Dyslexia, Volume 2, Number 3).
Stanovich (1988), for example, proposed that differences between high IQ and
low IQ poor readers will be found in areas such as vocabulary, general
knowledge, memory and comprehension but not in single word reading and the
processes related to this area of literacy, the main area of educational deficit
amongst dyslexics (see Working Party of the British Psychological Society, 1999).
However, even if it is shown that the same underlying phonological cause leads
to these literacy deficits, it may still be important to identify IQ-related
differences if they inform the assessment of compensatory strategies that the
child brings to the process of acquiring literacy. For example, there is evidence
that the context within which a word is placed can aid the recognition (speed and
accuracy) of that word. If given the sentence context of The skiers were buried in
the . . ., an individual will name the next word presented faster if it is an
appropriate ending to that sentence, such as SNOW, rather than an incongruous
or neutral word (Stanovich & West, 1983). Such context priming effects have been
found to be greater amongst dyslexics compared to reading-age matched controls
(see Nation & Snowling, 1998) despite the usual finding that dyslexics present
poorer phonological-based decoding skills than these controls (Frith & Snowling,
1983). The use of semantic/syntactic features may provide a compensatory
process for poor phonological decoding skills (see also Bishop & Snowling, 2004).
If this is the case, behavioural manifestations of dyslexia (such as reading
performance) may be as much a factor of these compensatory strategies as the
underlying deficit. A similar argument can be made in terms of the strategy-
based influence of vocabulary, which may explain findings indicating the use by
dyslexics of known word analogies to read unfamiliar letter strings (non-words)
compared to the attempts of low IQ poor readers to apply faulty phoneme
correspondences to read the same unfamiliar items (Spagna, 1996). Additional
compensatory strategies may be used by dyslexics with proficient visual
processing skills (Snowling, 2000) and, indeed, there is evidence for differences
in effective strategies used by high IQ and low IQ children with literacy
acquisition deficits in learning spellings (Brooks & Weeks, 1998). Brooks and
Weeks (1998) found that high IQ poor spellers learned more effectively through
methods that emphasized visual and semantic strengths, whereas the low IQ
children learned best when provided with carefully structured procedures
focusing on phonic skills. The assessment of factors such as vocabulary level and
appreciation of semantics, as well as visual skills, should inform assessors of such
potential areas of compensation, thereby clarifying observed reading behaviours
and potential strategies for learning. Research identifying areas of strength, either
relative to individual areas of weaknesses or relative to normal development,
may prove as vital as that which highlights skills in need of remediation. The
work outlined in this paper investigated the skills or processes that may develop
to normal levels of functioning within the child with literacy deficits and whether
these areas of relative skill would be useful in differentially distinguishing
groups of children with potentially different underlying causes of their literacy
difficulties from control children with no literacy deficits. The primary focus of
the research was on those children assessed as dyslexic, since this is the area
J. Everatt et al. 18
DOI: 10.1002/dys
where most controversy regarding current assessment practices can be found.
Other learning difficulties groups were included in the study to contrast
differences between dyslexics and controls against differences between controls
and these other SEN groups. The SEN groups selected were those that
educational assessment practitioners were likely to encounter relatively
frequently and which a relatively recent body of research indicated an overlap
with dyslexia (described below). This literature also formed the basis on which
measures incorporated into the current study were selected.
The range of normal development overlaps with many learning difficulties,
with the potential exception of those with more general learning difficulties who
may be seen as being below average range development. These latter children (in
the UK, typically referred to as children with moderate learning difficulties or
MLD) would include the low IQ poor readers discussed in previous paragraphs
and, therefore, will potentially overlap with dyslexics in a number of areas (Ellis
et al., 1996; Share, 1996; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997),
including the cause of their mutual reading (and spelling) problems. However,
dyslexic and MLD children may differ in the development of areas that may
support compensatory strategies (Brooks & Weeks, 1998) suggesting, therefore,
that the assessment of dyslexia or MLD against normal performance may be
educationally important. Therefore, children with an assessment of MLD were
included in the current study to inform procedures for making specific dyslexic
or MLD conclusions based on comparisons against normal development.
Dyslexia is often regarded as a sub-group of children with language
difficulties, due to relative weaknesses in phonological processes such as the
ability to recognize and manipulate sounds within words, phonological working
memory and verbal accessing skills (Adams, 1990; Bishop & Snowling, 2004;
Catts, Fay, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Snowling, 2000; Snowling, vanWagtendonk,
& Stafford, 1988). Children with specific language acquisition difficulties may
well show these weaknesses, together with broader problems in language areas
such as vocabulary, syntax and comprehension (Stackhouse & Wells, 1997).
Children with specific language difficulties (SLD) may present with literacy
acquisition difficulties due to the same phonological processing deficits found
amongst dyslexic children (though contrast Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Gillon,
2004). However, the overlap presented by mutual literacy and phonological
deficits would coincide with differences in areas that may provide potential for
compensatory strategies (e.g. vocabulary and semantics). Hence, the study
included a group of children assessed as having specific language impairments.
Dyspraxia has been less researched than dyslexia (Nicolson, 2000), but may be
regarded as including people with central processing weaknesses in visual and
motor skills or a non-verbal learning deficit (Portwood, 1999; Rourke, 1989).
However, some individuals with dyspraxia may also show relative weaknesses in
their phonology and verbal memory (Stackhouse & Snowling, 1992) and there are
individuals who have been assessed as dyslexic who show relative visual/non-
verbal weaknesses (Rack, 1997; Ramus, Pidgeon, & Frith, 2003). Consequently,
there is an overlap between dyspraxia and dyslexia in terms of our current
understanding of their cognitive and literacy development (see also Visser, 2003).
However, the most likely causal pathway that leads to literacy difficulties in these
groups may vary. In dyslexia, phonological deficits seem the most likely precursor
to poor literacy, which may manifest particularly in the area of decoding letters to
DOI: 10.1002/dys
sounds or sounds to letters. If we consider Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia as a
special case of language disability (for example, see discussions in Gillon, 2004),
the most likely causal pathway for the majority of dyspraxic individuals would
seem to be from visualspatial/motor deficits to coordination deficits that may be
more pronounced in spelling and text processing. These may subsequently lead to
poor literacy skills due to a general lack of motivation to learn following
experience of failure, in addition to a lack of reciprocal support provided across
different aspects of literacy. A group of children assessed as dyspraxic was
included in the study due to this evidence for an overlap with dyslexia but
potential differences in causal pathways. As with the previous two contrast SEN
groups, the research aimed to inform procedures for making specific dyslexic or
dyspraxic conclusions based on comparisons against normal development.
Overlaps have also been identified between dyslexics and children with
attention or behavioural difficulties, such as attention deficit (hyperactivity)
disorder (AD(H)D) or emotional/behavioural difficulties (EBD). Again, evidence
of poor educational achievement, including literacy acquisition deficits, can be
found amongst children assessed as having behavioural problems (Barkley, 1998).
Similarly, dyslexics have been found to present evidence of poor attention, possibly
due to low levels of educational success or a common causal pathway (see
discussions in Capute, Accardo, & Shapiro, 1994; Everatt, 1999). Additionally, the
consequences of poor educational achievement amongst dyslexics may be due to
low levels of self-esteem and accompanying increases in anxiety and depression
(Huntington & Bender, 1993; Miles & Varma, 1995; Riddick, 1996). Although this
may suggest some level of overlap between dyslexic, AD(H)D and EBD groups,
the literacy deficits found amongst these groups may be due to differing causes.
The phonological deficits that seem to accompany the poor reading skills of
dyslexic individuals may not manifest in the AD(H)D child (see Pennington,
Grossier, & Welsh, 1993). Those assessed as having attention, emotional and/or
behavioural problems may show poor reading skills due to educational
disadvantages produced by the incompatibility of the childs behaviour and the
schools teaching procedures. Therefore, children with attention deficits and
emotional/behavioural problems were included in the study for similar reasons as
those proposed for the inclusion of the dyspraxic group.
The overlap indicated between dyslexia and the other SEN groups targeted by
the research reported in this paper may lead to difficulties for assessment
procedures that aim to distinguish individual SEN conditions from normal
functioning. The aim of the current study was to inform those procedures that
focus on cognitive assessments, using methods that, as closely as possible,
mirrored practice; although, in order to provide data on the typical performance
of SEN individuals, as well as standard variability, groups of SEN children were
contrasted with normal performance as determined by a control group of
children with no known learning difficulty.
METHOD
Participants
Children aged between 11 and 13 at the time of testing were selected in order to
compare the performance of each of the six SEN groups with a control group
DOI: 10.1002/dys
representing normal development. A total of 83 children with SEN (see Table 1)
were carefully selected from specialist schools, or units within mainstream
schools, that were organized to support children with the learning difficulties
targeted. Children with extreme behavioural disorders were not included in the
sample given the potential problems that such severe difficulties may present for
the extensive data gathering procedures used and the potential concerns of
teachers and parents. Those for whom parental/guardian consent could not be
obtained were not included in the study. Educational Psychologist assessment
reports and teachers were consulted as part of a selection procedure that focused
on children who fell into one of the learning difficulty categories targeted and
which avoided children with an assessment that indicated that they might fall
into more than one of these categories. Only children for whom an Educational
Psychologists report was available were included in the SEN groups. Where a
detailed report was over two years old, only those children with a follow-up
report that was produced within two years of the testing performed as part of the
current study, and which confirmed the original learning difficulties assessment,
were considered. In addition, the SEN children had, prior to this study, received
at least one year of special teaching support and had been attending their current
school for at least two terms. Selection procedures targeted a relatively focused
age range to ensure that similar curriculum levels had been met by all SEN
children; although, to meet this requirement, the MLD group was, on average,
slightly older than the other groups (see Table 1).
Overall findings of the assessment reports were used as the main source of
selection, rather than individual test scores, to avoid selection procedures biasing
the sample to conform to study predictions. However, assessment reports were
considered in detail to ensure appropriate allocation to groups and to inform the
following descriptions of typical group members. For the majority of dyslexics,
full assessments had been undertaken when the child was between 9 and 11 years
of age. These reports indicated evidence of literacy difficulties in terms of poor
reading accuracy and rate, as well as low scores on word spelling. In addition,
most children were assessed on an IQ-related test battery (typically, the UK
edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, WISC; Wechsler, 1992)
with a discrepancy between IQ predicted literacy and observed literacy levels
being discussed in the report. All of the children in the dyslexic group were
reported to have a full-scale IQ within average limits of 85115 (i.e. within one
standard deviation of the population mean), in contrast to the MLD children
whose IQ ranged from 60 to 90 based on similar IQ-related test batteries. In the
vast majority of cases, these MLD children had been given a full assessment
shortly after starting formal education (typically around 67 years of age) and
had undergone several follow-up reports which had suggested some level of
Table 1. Average ages (with standard deviations in brackets) and number of males and
females in each of the six SEN groups and the controls
Control Dyslexic SLD MLD Dyspraxic ADD EBD
Age in years 11.55 (0.5) 11.60 (0.5) 11.62 (0.5) 11.89 (0.7) 11.60 (0.5) 11.50 (0.5) 11.60 (0.5)
Ratio of
males:females
25:15 14:6 9:4 12:6 7:3 8:4 7:3
DOI: 10.1002/dys
improvements in functioning over subsequent years. However, all MLD children
were undergoing special teaching for individuals with MLD at the time of the
study reported in this paper and showed evidence of low levels of curriculum
achievement. SLD children were also experiencing special support at the time of
current testing, though most reports indicated IQs within the 80100 range. All
SLD children had an assessment either before or early in formal schooling that
indicated slow language attainment, with the majority showing both receptive
and expressive weaknesses. All had follow-up reports that indicated continued
problems in language areas, as well as poor curriculum achievements, but
improvements following intensive support. Three of the dyspraxic children also
had reports that mentioned speech problems. However, these articulation
problems were presented in terms of related motor coordination problems that
were typically assessed through parental/teacher interviews and observations
during test taking. Tests usually formed a part of IQ-related test batteries, with
these dyspraxic children showing IQs within the normal range (similar to the
dyslexic children). In a further three cases, coordination problems were discussed
in terms of behavioural and peer problems, although these were not reported as
severe enough to warrant removal from normal classes. Full assessments were
relatively recent in the case of these dyspraxic children (typically at age 1012),
although most had been receiving some kind of special support for a year or
more prior to this formal assessment, mainly due to poor curriculum
achievements. All these dyspraxic children were being taught for part of their
studies in a special unit in a mainstream school that typically also supported
children with dyslexia. All of the children with behavioural difficulties were
taught in a special unit or school for children with such difficulties and had
attended this unit/school for more than two years prior to testing in the current
study. The childs age at the time of full assessment considered in this study
varied considerably within these groups (from 7 to 12 years of age), with the
primary characteristic in the full and follow-up reports being observations of the
childs behaviour, including their interactions with peers and adults, as well as
the childs curriculum achievement. Although all of these children attended
special classes/schools for children with behavioural difficulties, reports varied
in terms of their emphasis on hyperactivity/inattentiveness in classrooms versus
emotional problems and inappropriate behaviour with peers. In the former cases,
full assessments focused on attention-related deficits (typically referring
to attention deficit hyperactivity disorders), whereas in the latter, assessments
mainly referred to emotionalbehavioural problems. Although there was a
large overlap in terms of the behavioural and curriculum problems amongst
these children, they were divided into two groups for the purposes of the present
study.
An opportunity sample of 40 control children was selected from schools within
the same Southern England Local Education Authority (LEA) as the schools from
which the SEN samples were selected. All schools (mainstream and special) were
LEA supported. Part N 25 of the control sample came from two of the
mainstream schools with the specialist units from which SEN children had been
selected. These mainstream schools were within the same region (within 10
miles) as the schools from which the remaining SEN children were selected. The
rest of the control sample N 15 were selected from a mainstream school
within the same area as the other schools used for sample selection. This last
DOI: 10.1002/dys
school had a relatively small special needs provision for the age range targeted by
the research and hence did not provide SEN children for any of the analyses
presented in this paper. These school selection criteria were used to ensure
similar educational funding backgrounds. There was no attempt to select
children based on socioeconomic status, although all of the children tested in the
current study were funded through their LEA, lived within the catchment area of
the schools and were first language English speakers of English first language
parents (determined by teacher/parent reports). Parental/guardian permission
formed part of the criteria on which the control children were selected. Teachers
were consulted to ensure that there was no reported evidence of learning
difficulties or concerns about the acquisition of reading/writing skills. All control
children were meeting school achievement levels based on their current and
previous curriculum-based tests. Finally, control children were selected to mirror
age levels and sex ratios of the SEN groups (see Table 1).
Comparisons of the ages, together with the number of males and females in the
different groups, can be found in Table 1. Statistical analyses indicated little
evidence of differences between the groups in terms of age and male:female ratio.
A Chi-square analysis of the number of males and females in each group was
non-significant (w
2
6
0:55, p 0:99). There were more males in each of the SEN
groups as this reflected the population of the special schools or special units
where sampling was undertaken and the control children were selected to
correspond to this sex bias. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessing
differences between the ages of the groups was also non-significant
(F
6,116
0:87, p 0:52).
Measures
Test measures were selected to cover different aspects of word-level literacy
(reading and spelling), language ability (listening comprehension and vocabu-
lary), phonological processing (phonological awareness, verbal memory and
speeded access to verbal labels), non-verbal skills (reasoning, creativity, spatial
memory and handeye coordination) and attention/behavioural factors (rated
levels of hyperactivity and conduct disorders and interference from familiar
words or objects). Tasks were chosen, primarily, on consideration of the dyslexia
literature; although additional findings, related to the other learning difficulties
included in the present study, influenced this choice (these are discussed where
relevant below). Measures were treated separately rather than in function-
defined (or process-defined) combinations because of the possibility that an
individual measure would specifically differentiate an SEN group from the
controls}measures were functionally independent enough to consider this a
possibility.
Literacy was assessed by measures of both word reading and spelling based on
the view that word-level literacy is the main area of deficit related to dyslexia
(Working Party of the British Psychological Society, 1999). Reading and spelling
were used to provide two measures of the same deficit. These abilities were
considered separately due to the possibility that, on average, dyslexics may show
weakness (as determined by control-level performance) in both these areas,
whereas dyspraxic and SLD children may show deficits compared to controls in
DOI: 10.1002/dys
only one or neither of the measures (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Lord & Hulme,
1987). Language skills were assessed due to the literature on potential strengths
in the use of semantic or word knowledge to support learning amongst dyslexic
individuals (Nation & Snowling, 1998; Stanovich, 1988) and as a contrast with
potential deficits amongst children with SLD (Bishop & Snowling, 2004). Again
measures were treated separately as evidence also suggests that poor literacy
may impact on language skills, particularly vocabulary, due to a lack of exposure
to print (Stanovich, 1986). The different aspects of phonological processing were
assessed as phonology has been proposed in the literature as an area that is
highly related to literacy deficits, particularly in terms of dyslexia (see Snowling,
2000); however, different aspects of phonological processing have been found to
be relatively independent predictors of literacy level (Everatt, Smythe, Ocampo,
& Gyarmathy, 2004; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987) and, therefore, were treated
separately in the current study. Non-verbal measures were included as areas that
may present evidence of relative strengths amongst dyslexics (Everatt, Steffert, &
Smythe, 1999; Jeffries & Everatt, 2004). The non-verbal measures were also
chosen as a contrast with potential weaknesses (as against control performance)
amongst the other SEN groups, particularly the MLD and dyspraxic groups.
These tasks were selected to require skills often associated with general
intelligence (the reasoning skills required to perform the matrices task and the
ability to think of novel objects in the manipulation of shapes) and accurate
visualspatial and/or visualmotor coordination (the short-term retention of
hand movements to a series of spatial locations, and the handeye coordination
required to thread beads quickly and accurately). These tasks were considered
separately due to the varying areas of functioning that they assessed. Reasoning
and creativity have typically been considered independently, despite their
potential overlap (Wallach & Kogan, 1965; Weisberg, 1986), and although dyslexic
children have been found to be similar to matched controls in their scores on
spatial memory tasks (Jeffries & Everatt, 2004), they have been found in some
studies to show weaknesses compared to controls in fine motor tasks (Nicolson &
Fawcett, 1995). Measures of interference were selected based on the evidence
that, compared to controls, dyslexics have shown larger levels of word
interference, but similar levels of interference when words are replaced by
objects (Everatt et al., 1999). Levels of hyperactivity and conduct disorders were
rated by teachers to allow an assessment of behavioural problems amongst these
SEN groups based on the view that learning difficulties may result in or be a
result of behavioural problems (Broder, Dunivant, Smith, & Sutton, 1981;
Fergusson & Lynsky, 1997; McGee, Share, Moffitt, Williams, & Silva, 1988;
Pennington et al., 1993), potentially leading to all SEN children being identified as
having problems in these areas.
Individual measures were chosen to minimize the chance of the participants
having been previously assessed on the specific items used in the current study.
This was particularly important given the assessment and update processes
experienced by the children in the different SEN groups. Any learning effects
produced by repeated testing on the same materials might have reduced
differences compared to the control group who were unlikely to have
experienced assessment procedures of the same type as the SEN children.
Hence, although most children had prior experience of single word reading/
spelling tests, as far as could be determined from assessment reports and teacher
DOI: 10.1002/dys
interviews, none had experienced the two tests used in the current study.
Similarly, although many SEN children had been given tests of phonological
awareness and rapid naming, none of the assessment reports indicated the use of
the Dyslexia Screening Test (Fawcett & Nicolson, 1996) from which the awareness
task was taken, nor did they report the use of colours as items in a rapid naming
task. A majority of SEN children had also experienced the Digit Span sub-test of
the WISC; however, different digit strings to those reported in manual
procedures were used in the current study to minimize item sequence familiarity.
The use of new or modified test materials, or tests not typically found in
assessment reports, led to the decision to enter raw scores into the statistical
analyses reported in this paper for all but two of the measures. The first exception
was the verbal Working Memory measure (described below) in which forward
and reverse versions of the Digit Span sub-tests were combined using WISC
standardized scores to allow a single measure to be used in the analyses. In the
second exception case the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS; Dunn, Dunn,
Whetton, & Pintilie, 1982) was chosen to assess receptive vocabulary because it
was appropriate for use with a UK English first language sample and since the
vast majority of children in the study had not, as far as inspection of reports
could determine, experienced this test before. However, this choice meant that
over half of the SLD children had, according to assessment reports, been tested
on this scale prior to the current study and, therefore, may achieve higher scores
on this measure due to past experience. To test for evidence of such a practice
bias, the scores on the vocabulary test were converted to IQ standard scores
(mean 100, standard deviation 15) to allow comparisons with previous
vocabulary scores in assessment reports. Comparisons revealed that vocabulary
scores achieved by the SLD children in the present study were indeed higher
than those achieved in their previous recorded vocabulary assessment; however,
the level of improvement was consistent across SLD children given the BPVS in
the previous assessment and SLD children experiencing a different vocabulary
test. Thus, although they cannot be ruled out entirely, there was no evidence of a
specific test bias amongst these children on this test.
Children were given the study tasks individually in a quiet room away from
distractions. Testing took place on several different days, over the period of 23
weeks. Each test session lasted no longer than 30 min. The tests taken in each
session was determined by the assessor based on the pace of the individual child.
Procedures started with the creativity task followed by one of the language tasks
(vocabulary for approximately half the individuals in each group, listening
comprehension for the rest). The second language task was then given with the
rapid naming tasks during the last test session. Typically, the reading and
memory span measures were performed during the same session, as was Ravens
matrices with the phonological awareness task. The spelling and bead threading
tasks were also typically given together during the same session. Exceptions to
this led to one of the memory span measures being given during the following
session, typically with the spelling and bead threading tasks or to both of the
memory span tasks been given with the spelling test and the bead threading task
been taken in the final session with the rapid naming and second language task.
In two cases (both MLD children), the second language task (vocabulary in one
case, listening comprehension in the other) was taken on its own as an additional
final test session.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Single-word Reading
The Schonell Word Reading Test (Schonell, 1950) was used as the basis to assess
the single-word reading abilities of the children. Despite the normative data of
this test being relatively old, it was chosen due to at least some (two or more)
SEN children having had experience, according to assessment reports, of most
alternative tests with UK norms. As argued above, measures that had been
experienced by SEN participants were avoided to ensure that practice effects did
not mask differences between groups. The inclusion in the study of a control
group of children meant that comparisons were against current levels of ability
on the tests, rather than against potentially inappropriate normative data.
The reading test required the child to read aloud a series of unrelated words
printed on a sheet of paper. There were 100 individual words divided into 10
sections of increasing difficulty. Raw scores of the number of words correctly read
out of 100 were used in the subsequent analyses.
Word Spelling
A spelling test, based on the Vernon Graded Word Spelling test (Vernon, 1989)
and that used in Smythe and Everatt (2000), assessed the childrens ability to spell
individual words. The procedure involved orally presenting the child with a
series of individual words of increasing difficulty. These same words were then
verbally presented in the context of a sentence and, lastly, individually presented
again. Instructions emphasized that the single words were to be written, not the
sentences. The number of correctly spelt words out of 50 was used as the score for
this measure.
Listening Comprehension
A listening comprehension task was developed for the present study. This test
was based on that used in Everatt, Smythe, Ocampo, and Veii (2002) and was
piloted on UK children independent of those reported in the present paper. The
task consisted of four short stories presented orally to the children. After each
story the children were asked verbally a series of questions related to incidents in
the stories. Children were asked to indicate simple YES/NO answers to the
questions by marking appropriate sections of an answer sheet provided. The
number of correct responses out of a total of 32 was used as the measure of
performance on this task.
Vocabulary
The BPVS (Dunn et al., 1982) was chosen to assess the childs receptive
vocabulary. In this task, the child was required to select from a set of options the
picture that represented a verbal label spoken by the assessor. Scoring was based
on the test manual, with standardized norms of 100 and 15 being used to
calculate a standard score for each child.
Non-verbal Reasoning
Ravens Coloured Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1976) were used to assess non-
verbal reasoning ability. This test involved sets of abstract patterns that formed
incomplete sequences. For each incomplete sequence a set of options was
provided, only one of which correctly completed the sequence. The childs task
DOI: 10.1002/dys
was to complete the sequence by choosing the correct option. The number of
sequences completed correctly out of a total of 36 was used as the score for this
test. Raw scores were used in the analyses.
Phonological Awareness
The Phonological Segmentation task from the Dyslexia Screening Test (Fawcett &
Nicolson, 1996) was used to assess the childs phonological awareness. In this
task the participant was required to segment words, for example:
Say rainbow without bow (syllabic segmentation).
Say boat without /b/ (phonemic segmentation).
Say flag without /f/ (division of phoneme then segmentation).
The score achieved was the number of correctly segmented words out of 12. Raw
scores were used in the analyses.
Verbal Working Memory
The Digit Span procedures from the WISC were used to assess verbal or
phonological working memory. The participants were required to repeat strings
of digits verbally presented by the assessor. Initially three digits were presented
for two trials. If one or both were completed correctly, strings of four digits were
presented for two trials. Strings increased by one digit over the assessment with
testing being stopped if the child made two errors at a given sequence length.
Children were required to retain the exact order of digits presented; however, in
the forward version of the test, they were required to repeat the digits in the
order of presentation, whereas in the reverse version of the test, they had to
repeat the digits in the reverse order. Based on manual instructions derived from
population norms of 10 (mean) and 3 (standard deviation), scores for forward
and reverse versions of the test were converted to standard scores.
VisualSpatial Short-term Memory
This task used nine identical black squares arranged randomly on an A4 size
stimulus card to assess the childrens ability to follow sequences of spatial
movements across an array of visually identical items. Testers pointed to a
specified sequence of squares and then asked the children to repeat the pointing
movements in the same order. As in the Digit Span task outlined above,
increasing sequence lengths were used, starting with two sequences of two
pointing movements. A reverse procedure was also incorporated in which the
children were required to repeat each pointing sequence in the reverse order to
that presented. The combined number of correct responses in the forward and
reverse procedures was used to measure the level of performance. Practice trials
preceded both test procedures to ensure understanding.
Bead Threading
This task was based on that used in the Dyslexia Screening Test (Fawcett &
Nicolson, 1996). The procedure required the children to thread beads onto a piece
of string as quickly as possible, with the number of beads that the child could
thread in 30 s being recorded. Practice trials using two beads preceded testing to
ensure the child followed what was required.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Creativity
Everatt et al. (1999) found that adult dyslexics produced higher scores on a
drawing creativity task compared to matched non-dyslexics. The same task was
incorporated into the present study to assess non-verbal creative talents amongst
the groups tested. The task involved each child being given a series of shapes and
asked to draw, from these shapes, as many objects as possible. The score achieved
was the number of novel items produced with the raw score being used for
analysis. Where an item was difficult for the tester to interpret, the child was
asked to provide a verbal label for the drawing.
Behavioural (Conduct and Hyperactivity) Difficulties
Teachers of the children in the study answered a series of statements about
the children they were teaching that were part of the study. Statements were
derived from those used in Goodmans Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(Goodman, 1997) and modified with reference to the American Psychiatric
Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders}
Fourth Edition statements on conduct and hyperactivity. Half the statements
focussed on the presentation of conduct problems, such as oppositional defiance,
and half referred to impulsive behaviours, the inability to concentrate and the
childs susceptibility to distraction. Responses were scored as 0 (to indicate no
problem), 1 (representing some problems) or 2 (indicating that there were major
problems in this area). Statements were totalled for the two types (conduct and
hyperactivity) of behavioural problem, with a larger score indicating higher
levels of reported difficulties.
Rapid Naming and Interference Measures
A colour naming task and two interference tasks, the traditional Stroop
incongruous colour word task (Stroop, 1935) and an incongruous coloured
object task, were used (see discussion of such tasks in Everatt et al., 1999). Levels
of interference have been found to be related to attention deficits, which may be a
consequence of increased hyperactivity or impulsivity found in many children
with behavioural problems (Lovoie & Charlebois, 1994; Lufi, Cohen, &
Parishplass, 1990). However, levels of interference from written words have also
been found to be related to reading age (Everatt, Warner, Miles, & Thomson,
1997) and many studies have found rapid naming deficits to be higher amongst
dyslexics (Wolf & OBrien, 2001). Therefore, all three tasks were incorporated in
the battery of tests to determine whether rapid naming and/or interference could
be used to specifically differentiate those with dyslexia or attention/behavioural
problems from controls or whether such tasks showed consistent deficits across
most groups with learning difficulties.
In each task, the same 24 colours were presented and rapidly named by the
child. In the basic colour naming condition, blocks of the red, blue, green and
yellow colours were presented on an A4 sheet of paper. Each colour was repeated
six times. A pseudo-random order was used that avoided continuous repetitions
of the same response. In the incongruent word condition, the same four colours
were presented in the form of incongruous colour words, with each colour word
being presented in the three incongruous colours; e.g. the word green presented
in red, blue or yellow ink. In the incongruent object condition, these same four
DOI: 10.1002/dys
colours were again used, but this time presented in the form of colour-associated
objects. Line drawings taken from Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) were used to
represent the sun, a leaf, a peacock and a strawberry. Each line drawing was
colour filled in the three incongruous colours; e.g. the line drawing of the sun
being coloured red, green or blue.
Each condition used the same array of eight rows and three columns, making
24 naming responses in each of the three conditions. The horizontal area covered
by the colour blocks was made roughly equivalent to the size of the word GREEN
in the word condition and size of a line drawing in the object condition. The
vertical distance of the colour blocks was larger than a colour word but smaller
than a line drawing. The childs task was to name the colours as quickly and
accurately as possible. Children were told to ignore the words or line drawings in
the two interference conditions and concentrate simply on the colours.
Performance was based on the time taken to name all 24 colours. Timing was
started when the assessor indicated that the child should start and ended when
the last response was made. Practice items were used to ensure the child
understood instructions and could name the colours. Uncorrected errors were
noted and a 1 s time penalty added to the time score.
The colour block condition acted as a measure of rapid naming ability and as a
control condition for the two interference measures. The word condition assessed
the level of interference produced by reading a word on colour naming. The
object condition assessed the level of interference produced by processing an
object on colour naming. The level of interference was used as indicative of the
ability to ignore an irrelevant stimulus in the environment and focus on a
relevant stimulus. Interference was simply measured by subtracting a childs
colour block naming time from each of the two interference conditions.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics of the data produced by each of the groups on each of the
measures used in the study can be found in Table 2.
One-way ANOVA were conducted on each measure to assess the effect of
group membership (the six diagnosed groups and the controls) on performance.
These were followed by Dunnetts t-tests in which each diagnosed group was
specifically compared against the control group; i.e. the specific comparisons of
interest based on the objectives of the study. For the initial ANOVA, the
traditional significance level of 0.05 was reduced to the much more conservative
alpha level of 0.003 based on the 0.05 probability value being distributed across
the 15 analyses (i.e. 0.05 divided by 15). This was to control for the increased
chance of a type I error being committed amongst the number of ANOVA
performed. However, such a conservative alpha level may also substantially
increase the possibility of type II errors. Therefore, two further procedures were
included to reduce the chance of missing a true difference. First, the traditional
alpha level of 0.05 was retained for the Dunnetts tests given that, once the
ANOVA was deemed significant, these post hoc analyses control for increased
error rate within the comparisons associated with the significant result. Second,
where an ANOVA did not achieve the conservative alpha level, Dunnett
comparisons were still considered if they were significant at the 0.0005 alpha
DOI: 10.1002/dys
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
c
o
r
e
s
(
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s
)
o
n
t
h
e
t
e
s
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
x
S
E
N
g
r
o
u
p
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
y
s
l
e
x
i
c
S
L
D
M
L
D
D
y
s
p
r
a
x
i
c
A
D
D
E
B
D
W
o
r
d
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
8
0
.
4
0
(
1
1
.
8
9
)
6
3
.
6
0
(
1
0
.
3
4
)
5
9
.
3
8
(
1
1
.
6
1
)
5
3
.
1
7
(
1
6
.
6
8
)
7
2
.
2
0
(
1
7
.
1
6
)
6
7
.
3
3
(
1
1
.
2
1
)
6
9
.
9
0
(
1
0
.
4
0
)
W
o
r
d
s
p
e
l
l
i
n
g
3
8
.
9
7
(
6
.
1
4
)
2
7
.
7
5
(
7
.
9
7
)
2
7
.
0
0
(
7
.
2
8
)
2
2
.
2
2
(
7
.
6
3
)
2
6
.
1
0
(
1
0
.
6
2
)
3
0
.
2
5
(
8
.
8
8
)
3
1
.
5
0
(
8
.
8
0
)
L
i
s
t
e
n
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
2
2
.
6
7
(
5
.
0
6
)
2
0
.
3
5
(
5
.
0
9
)
1
6
.
7
7
(
6
.
2
1
)
1
4
.
0
0
(
4
.
6
7
)
2
1
.
8
0
(
4
.
7
3
)
1
9
.
3
3
(
7
.
4
9
)
2
0
.
1
0
(
5
.
1
3
)
V
o
c
a
b
1
0
3
.
5
0
(
1
5
.
3
6
)
9
6
.
7
5
(
1
1
.
5
3
)
9
1
.
1
5
(
1
3
.
4
6
)
8
0
.
5
0
(
1
2
.
2
2
)
1
0
2
.
0
0
(
1
1
.
5
6
)
1
0
0
.
9
2
(
1
5
.
4
3
)
9
8
.
9
(
1
6
.
1
9
)
R
a
v
e
n
s
m
a
t
r
i
c
e
s
2
9
.
3
5
(
3
.
7
4
)
2
9
.
4
0
(
5
.
7
1
)
2
7
.
5
4
(
4
.
3
3
)
2
5
.
5
0
(
4
.
7
2
)
2
6
.
0
0
(
5
.
1
9
)
3
0
.
0
8
(
4
.
6
2
)
2
8
.
7
0
(
3
.
0
2
)
P
h
o
n
o
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
9
.
7
5
(
2
.
2
7
)
7
.
1
0
(
2
.
1
0
)
6
.
6
9
(
2
.
7
8
)
6
.
6
1
(
1
.
9
7
)
8
.
7
0
(
2
.
4
5
)
8
.
2
5
(
2
.
0
5
)
7
.
7
0
(
1
.
8
9
)
R
a
p
i
d
n
a
m
i
n
g
2
3
.
8
5
(
3
.
1
2
)
2
9
.
0
5
(
3
.
6
2
)
3
1
.
1
5
(
3
.
0
0
)
2
6
.
8
3
(
5
.
3
3
)
2
6
.
4
0
(
5
.
8
0
)
2
3
.
0
0
(
3
.
0
5
)
2
4
.
8
0
(
6
.
8
5
)
V
e
r
b
a
l
s
p
a
n
1
0
.
4
8
(
3
.
0
6
)
8
.
3
0
(
2
.
9
9
)
8
.
0
0
(
3
.
3
2
)
6
.
6
7
(
2
.
2
0
)
1
0
.
5
0
(
3
.
1
0
)
8
.
0
0
(
2
.
3
0
)
7
.
5
0
(
1
.
8
4
)
S
p
a
t
i
a
l
m
e
m
o
r
y
8
.
8
8
(
2
.
7
4
)
9
.
7
5
(
2
.
6
1
)
7
.
9
2
(
2
.
1
0
)
6
.
2
2
(
1
.
9
9
)
5
.
9
0
(
2
.
8
5
)
8
.
5
8
(
2
.
1
5
)
8
.
0
0
(
1
.
9
4
)
B
e
a
d
t
h
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
1
2
.
3
8
(
2
.
9
5
)
1
2
.
0
0
(
2
.
8
3
)
1
1
.
0
0
(
3
.
2
4
)
1
1
.
4
4
(
2
.
3
8
)
1
0
.
0
0
(
3
.
3
3
)
1
2
.
2
5
(
2
.
5
3
)
1
1
.
5
0
(
2
.
7
2
)
C
r
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
c
o
r
e
8
.
5
5
(
2
.
4
3
)
9
.
2
5
(
3
.
2
9
)
7
.
9
2
(
2
.
7
8
)
6
.
3
3
(
2
.
4
0
)
7
.
0
0
(
2
.
1
6
)
7
.
9
2
(
3
.
0
9
)
6
.
9
0
(
2
.
1
3
)
H
y
p
e
r
d
i
f
f
s
3
.
5
3
(
1
.
9
9
)
5
.
2
5
(
1
.
5
5
)
5
.
1
5
(
2
.
0
3
)
6
.
4
4
(
2
.
6
6
)
5
.
3
0
(
1
.
7
7
)
7
.
2
5
(
2
.
0
9
)
7
.
0
0
(
2
.
1
1
)
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
d
i
f
f
s
2
.
5
3
(
1
.
8
8
)
3
.
0
0
(
1
.
5
9
)
2
.
9
2
(
1
.
4
4
)
2
.
6
7
(
2
.
6
6
)
3
.
3
0
(
2
.
0
0
)
3
.
2
5
(
2
.
0
5
)
5
.
3
0
(
1
.
4
9
)
W
o
r
d
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
4
.
2
3
(
7
.
8
1
)
9
.
0
0
(
7
.
9
9
)
1
0
.
9
2
(
1
1
.
6
9
)
1
1
.
7
2
(
9
.
1
2
)
7
.
0
0
(
1
2
.
4
2
)
9
.
3
3
(
7
.
8
5
)
8
.
7
0
(
6
.
8
3
)
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
0
.
1
8
(
4
.
6
0
)
0
.
2
5
(
4
.
2
5
)
1
.
3
8
(
6
.
3
4
)
1
.
4
4
(
4
.
9
7
)
1
.
4
0
(
1
0
.
4
1
)
7
.
7
5
(
6
.
8
6
)
4
.
2
0
(
5
.
2
7
)
DOI: 10.1002/dys
level (i.e. 0.05 divided by 90, the total number of Dunnett comparisons
performed). This procedure enabled the direct comparison of each diagnosed
group against the controls baseline on each of the measures in the study, while
reducing the likelihood of errors across the number of analyses that this required.
The results of these statistical analyses are presented in Table 3.
y
Graphical representations of the profiles produced by the groups are presented
in Figures 1 and 2 in terms of z-scores. These are presented to provide visual
comparisons of the average performance of each SEN group against that of
expected normal range performance as determined by control group scores;
although, such scores can also be treated as analogous to Cohens d estimates of
effect size. On each graph, the vertical axis indicates the number of standard
deviations (using the standard deviation of the control group as an estimate of
population norm) that each SEN group differed from normal (taken as the mean
of the control group) on each of the test measures. A negative z-score indicates
performance worse than normal. For ease of presentation, the SEN groups were
divided across the two graphs, with dyslexics, SLD and MLD groups on one
graph and dyspraxics, ADD and EBD on the other. Average performance of the
control group is signified by 0 in each graph. Tasks are presented along the
horizontal axis, the literacy measures on the left, followed by the phonological
measures, verbal measures, non-verbal measures and finally behavioural scales
and interference levels.
DISCUSSION
The results show the difficulty of specifically identifying such SEN groups
against normal levels in tasks characteristic of educational assessment proce-
dures. Very few of the individual measures showed a significant difference
between the controls and just one of the SEN groups, indicating the need to use a
number of measures to identify specifically a particular SEN group against
normal level performance. All SEN groups presented evidence of literacy
difficulties in single word reading and/or spelling. Under definitions that focus
on literacy attainment as a defining characteristic of dyslexia (Gersons-
Wolfensberger and Ruijssenaars, 1997; Working Party of the British Psychological
Society, 1999), the majority of these SEN children would be classified as dyslexic.
As such, comparisons based solely on these word-level literacy scores against
control norms may not discriminate between the SEN groups assessed in this
y
In addition, as a further procedure to reduce the likelihood of missing effects while
controlling for type I errors, multivariate analyses were conducted by combining
measures, based on targeted function/processes, into literacy (reading and spelling),
phonological processing (awareness, accessing and memory), verbal ability (listening
comprehension and vocabulary), non-verbal ability (reasoning and creativity), visuo-
motor skills (spatial span and bead threading), behavioural areas (hyperactivity and
conduct) and interference (word and object). These multivariate analyses were all
significant at the 0.001 level, except for the non-verbal combination which was significant
at the 0.01 level. Follow-up univariate analyses produced similar results to those reported
in Table 3. Therefore, given the similarity of these results, and the aim of the study to focus
on the profile of skills presented by the groups and to treat each measure as potentially
differentiating between groups, the full analyses were reported as in Table 3.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
study, potentially leading to these children being treated identically. Whether this
is the optimal procedure to use with all these children is questionable (see Weeks,
Brooks, & Everatt, 2002). Indeed, the dyslexics in this sample showed no area of
deficit that could be said to be specifically characteristic of their group
membership. Weaknesses compared to control levels in literacy and phonological
measures were as large, if not larger, amongst the other SEN groups, particularly
the SLD and MLD groups (see Figure 1). These data were consistent with
findings for deficits in literacy (reading and spelling) and phonological
processing (awareness, memory and rapid access) amongst children with
generally low scores on IQ-based tests (Ellis et al., 1996; Share, 1996; Siegel,
1988; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997) and amongst
children with a history of language impairments (Bishop et al., 1999; Briscoe,
Bishop, & Norbury, 2001; Catts et al., 2002; Goulandris, Snowling, & Walker, 2000;
Van Alphen et al., 2004; Wiig, Zureich, & Chan, 2000). The findings of such
studies, and the data reported in the present paper, suggest that either the
Table 3. Results of analyses of variance for each measure and Dunnetts comparisons of
each SEN group against the controls
ANOVA p-Values for Dunnett comparisons
of control group against
df 6; 116 Dyslexic SLD MLD Dyspraxic ADD EBD
Word reading F 11:89 p50:001 p50:001 p50:001 p 0:171 p 0:007 p 0:058
p50:001
Word spelling F 12:92 p50:001 p50:001 p50:001 p50:001 p 0:002 p 0:020
p50:001
Listening comp F 6:33 p 0:260 p 0:002 p50:001 p 0:803 p 0:151 p 0:362
p50:001
Vocab F 6:42 p 0:188 p 0:019 p50:001 p 0:857 p 0:760 p 0:580
p50:001
Ravens matrices F 2:57 NS p 0:404 p 0:009 p 0:094 NS p 0:821
p 0:023
Phono awareness F 6:70 p50:001 p50:001 p50:001 p 0:371 p 0:109 p 0:029
p50:001
Rapid naming F 8:06 p50:001 p50:001 p 0:037 p 0:204 NS p 0:726
p50:001
Verbal span F 5:45 p 0:016 p 0:020 p50:001 NS p 0:025 p 0:010
p50:001
Spatial memory F 5:32 NS p 0:431 p 0:001 p 0:003 p 0:838 p 0:540
p50:001
Bead threading F 1:22 p 0:795 p 0:290 p 0:467 p 0:055 p 0:905 p 0:615
p 0:30
Creativity score F 2:74 NS p 0:678 p 0:011 p 0:228 p 0:685 p 0:189
p 0:016
Hyper diffs F 8:87 p 0:008 p 0:039 p50:001 p 0:043 p50:001 p50:001
p50:001
Conduct diffs F 2:93 p 0:461 p 0:492 p 0:500 p 0:403 p 0:401 p 0:0003
p 0:011
Word interfer F 2:09 p 0:128 p 0:053 p 0:010 p 0:605 p 0:193 p 0:325
p 0:06
Object interfer F 3:41 NS p 0:716 p 0:658 p 0:742 p 0:0003 p 0:123
p 0:004
Note: NS indicates that the control group performed worse than the SEN group on that measure. Significant
comparisons are presented in bold.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
majority of children with dyslexia, MLD and SLD should be treated identically in
educational programmes designed to remediate literacy-related weaknesses or
that further measures need to be considered to specifically differentiate each of
these SEN groups from normal development. In the data reported in this paper, it
was only when performance in general language (listening comprehension and
vocabulary) and visualspatial areas (the spatial memory task) were considered
that the results of the analyses for dyslexic, SLD and MLD groups diverged. In
each of these areas, the performance of the dyslexic group did not differ
significantly from the controls, with scores typically falling within about half a
control standard deviation of the average control student (see Figure 1). This was
in contrast to the below average/normal range (i.e. one standard deviation from
control mean) performance of the average MLD child across most measures in
the study and the similar weaknesses in listening comprehension and vocabulary
found amongst the SLD children. Although the dyslexics produced lower scores
on both language tasks compared to controls, their performance on most of the
non-verbal tasks was as good or slightly better than controls. As such, the areas
assessed by these tasks, particularly the spatial memory task, may be considered
as relative strengths in comparison to their weaknesses in literacy and
phonological processing (see also Jeffries & Everatt, 2004). However, individual
Read Spell PhoAw RNam VerSp List Vocab NVRea Creat SpaSp Motor Hyper Cond WdInt ObInt
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Dyslexic
SLD
MLD
z
-
s
c
o
r
e
Figure 1. Profiles produced by the dyslexic, SLD and MLD groups on each of the
measures in the study in comparison to the performance of the control group. Note: The
line at z 0 indicates the average performance of the control group in the study. Key:
Read, single word reading; Spell, word spelling; PhoAw, phonological awareness task;
RNam, rapid naming of colour blocks; VerSp, verbal span/working memory; List,
listening comprehension; Vocab, vocabulary; NVRea, non-verbal reasoning/Ravens
matrices; Creat, creativity score; SpaSp, spatial span/visuo-spatial short-term memory;
Motor, bead threading/fine motor skills; Hyper, hyperactivity score; Cond, conduct
difficulties score; WdInt, interference from incongruent colour words; ObInt, interference
from incongruent coloured objects.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
variability, particularly amongst dyslexic and SLD children in general language
tasks (see vocabulary in Table 2), may mean that further measures are required to
specifically identify members of these groups (see also discussions in Bishop &
Snowling, 2004).
The overlap between dyslexic, SLD and MLD groups in terms of poor literacy
and weak phonological skills is consistent with views that argue for common
causes of literacy deficits among these groups (see discussions in Snowling, 2000;
Stanovich, 1996; though see also Bishop & Snowling, 2004). Compared to
controls, all three SEN groups showed significantly worse performance on each
of the phonological areas assessed (i.e. phonological segmentation skills, rapid
access of phonological forms and phonological short-term memory). The same
was not true for the other three SEN groups. The performance of the dyspraxic,
ADD and EBD groups was not consistently worse than the controls on measures
of phonological awareness, rapid naming and verbal span suggesting that (an)
alternative causal pathway(s) may be needed to explain their poor literacy scores.
These findings were consistent with previous work reported in the literature.
Individuals with attention/behavioural problems have often been found to show
deficits in literacy (Barkley, 1998), although these may be less widespread than
for other learning difficulties groups, particularly in non-comorbid cohorts
Read Spell PhoAw RNam VerSp List Vocab NVRea Creat SpaSp Motor Hyper Cond WdInt ObInt
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Dyspraxic
ADD
EBD
z
-
s
c
o
r
e
Figure 2. Profiles produced by the dyspraxic, ADD and EBD groups on each of the
measures in the study in comparison to the performance of the control group. Note: The
line at z 0 indicates the average performance of the control group in the study. Key:
Read, single word reading; Spell, word spelling; PhoAw, phonological awareness task;
RNam, rapid naming of colour blocks; VerSp, verbal span/working memory; List,
listening comprehension; Vocab, vocabulary; NVRea, non-verbal reasoning/Ravens
matrices; Creat, creativity score; SpaSp, spatial span/visuo-spatial short-term memory;
Motor, bead threading/fine motor skills; Hyper, hyperactivity score; Cond, conduct
difficulties score; WdInt, interference from incongruent colour words; ObInt, interference
from incongruent coloured objects.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
(Ghelami, Sidhu, Jain, & Tannock, 2004; Raberger & Wimmer, 2003). Similar
conclusions have been derived from studies of phonological processing. Even in
tasks requiring rapid access of verbal labels (including colour names), children
with attention/behavioural problems have been found to perform at similar
levels to control children, particularly when vocabulary levels were controlled
(Ghelami et al., 2004) suggesting that when differences are found, they may be
related to comorbid language problems. The current data were consistent with
this position. Although individuals with Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia may
show more consistent deficits in both literacy and phonological processing
(Stackhouse & Snowling, 1992), the present data suggest that, as in the case of
ADD/EBD, the majority of children with dyspraxia do not show consistent
deficits across all areas of word literacy and phonological processing (although
see Bridgeman & Snowling, 1988). These data suggest that dyslexia can be
distinguished from dyspraxia and ADD/EBD by considering weaknesses in
literacy that correspond to weaknesses in a range of phonological processing
tasks.
Dyslexics and dyspraxics also differed in terms of their performance relative to
control levels on measures of verbal versus visualspatial measures. The findings
of differential deficits compared to controls amongst dyspraxics in the spatial
span task and amongst dyslexics in the verbal memory task were consistent with
the findings reported by Jeffries and Everatt (2003) for adult dyspraxics and
dyslexics. Although the dyspraxics also produced the lowest average score on the
bead threading task, the non-significant effect suggests that although deficits
may be found amongst these children in fine motor (handeye) coordination,
deficits in visualspatial areas may be more pronounced in comparison to
controls (see also Wilson & McKenzie, 1998). Furthermore, the profile produced
by the dyspraxic group suggests that weaknesses in visualspatial, and possibly
motor areas, may be co-incidental with their poor literacy performance,
particularly in spelling. However, further research is clearly necessary to
support this interpretation, particularly when considering the profile of
the MLD children. Where the dyslexics differed from controls on phonological-
based measures, so did the MLD children. This may be consistent with
poor phonological processing leading to literacy deficits in both dyslexics
and MLD children. However, weaknesses amongst dyspraxics in visualspatial
areas were mirrored by similar weaknesses amongst the MLD children,
suggesting some level of commonality between dyspraxics and MLD
children in terms of deficits in non-verbal processing (see Table 2) and,
potentially, a common route to their literacy difficulties. Both phonological
and visualspatial deficits may explain the particularly poor literacy scores
amongst the MLD children, although the specific characteristic of the MLD
group in comparison to control performance was one of the generally
worse performance (see Figure 1). Further work is necessary to determine
the veracity of these potential alternative causes of literacy difficulties,
though these data further indicate the level of overlap between these learning
difficulties groups.
On the behavioural disorder measures, the EBD group was the only group that
significantly differed from the controls on the conduct scale. Interestingly, all SEN
groups were seen by teachers as more hyperactive than the controls, although the
ADD group produced the largest average score on the hyperactivity scale.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
However, such hyperactivity may be related to different factors. Hyperactivity
could be the result of learning problems in the classroom or some underlying
attentional deficit (Broder et al., 1981; Capute et al., 1994; Fergusson & Lynsky,
1997; McGee et al., 1988; Pennington et al., 1993). The latter may be more
indicative of problems focusing attention on task. Although all groups presented
evidence of interference from written words (see Table 2), the ADD children were
the only group to show marked difficulties ignoring the object when colour
naming and the only group to differ from controls on the object interference
measure. This finding is indicative of the ADD childrens inability to focus on the
required task, possibly due to poor inhibitory control. Hence, hyperactivity in
combination with increased levels of interference may provide assessment tools
to identify the type of attention difficulties experienced by ADD children and to
inform assessments of the potential underlying reason for observations of
hyperactivity in SEN children}i.e. distinguish between hyperactivity caused by
poor inhibitory control, which is most likely indicative of ADD, versus
hyperactivity caused by poor educational achievement, which may be found
amongst children with any one of the number of different learning difficulties,
including dyslexia. Interestingly, the ADD group was the only group to differ
from the controls in the object interference measure and the EBD group was the
only group to differ from the controls in the observational conduct scale, but
there was no measure where both groups were the only ones to differ from
controls. Despite their similarities, such attention/behavioural groups were
distinguishable by their performance compared to control levels. Further
research is necessary to provide additional evidence for the efficacy of such
measures as those used in the current study as ways of specifically identifying
ADD and EBD children and whether it is educationally beneficial to distinguish
children with behaviour-related problems focusing on hyperactivity/impulsivity
versus those with similar problems that are primarily apparent from interactions
with others.
The results of this study indicated that children with literacy deficits may
present very different profiles of strengths and difficulties. In order to access
educational difficulties, and specifically distinguish each of these SEN group
from normal performance, a range of tests were required that tapped differing
aspects of cognitive functioning. Relying on single measures of difficulty may
lead to inaccurate assumptions about the individuals cognitive functioning, as
well as inappropriate conclusions about the potential causes of educational
deficits and less than optimal recommendations for support. Although the
emphasis of this paper has been on dyslexia, and the assessment of areas of
relative strength in contrast to a focus on assessing weaknesses, this does not
mean that measures of discrepancy between strengths and weaknesses are
necessary or appropriate. Creativity scores (a relative strength amongst dyslexics)
and spelling ability (a typical weakness amongst dyslexics) vary quite
independently and determining a specific value that such measures should
differ by before an assessment of dyslexia is recorded will potentially lead to
the same problems by which current discrepancy methods have been criticized.
If the two measures in a discrepancy formula vary independently, any child,
whether they have literacy difficulties or not, may produce scores that meet the
discrepancy cut-off, potentially leading to the implementation of inappropriate
support procedures. Similarly, a child with literacy problems may not meet the
DOI: 10.1002/dys
discrepancy cut-off leading to a neglect of needs. Rather the current findings
argue for the assessment of a range of skills to profile areas of strength and
weakness that can inform support procedures. An educational difficulty, such as
poor progress in literacy acquisition, will clearly be the entry point to assessment.
A child would not be put through an assessment unless they were experiencing
some education-related problem. Therefore, an area of weakness is still
fundamental to the process of assessment. All of the children tested in the
current study, apart from the those in the control group, were experiencing
educational difficulties to varying degrees. However, once that problem had been
identified, further assessment procedures should inform decisions about the best
method of support. Such support may involve additional assessment to identify
specific weaknesses requiring intensive remediation based on likely cause(s) of
difficulties, or may include the teaching of strategies based on relative strengths
that can compensate for weaknesses and build on positive learning outcomes.
The present evidence suggests that a profile of cognitive and educational
development, including areas of strength and weakness, would better identify
the nature of an individuals difficulties and provide the most effective way to
inform educational programs.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. MA: MIT Press.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association.
Barkley, R. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. New York: Guilford.
Bishop, D. V. M., Bishop, S. J., Bright, P., James, C., Delaney, T., & Tallal, P. (1999). Different
origin of auditory and phonological processing problems in children with language
impairments: Evidence from a twin study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 42,
155168.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language
impairment: Same or different. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858886.
Bridgeman, E., & Snowling, M. (1988). The perception of phoneme sequence: A comparison
of dyspraxic and normal children. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 23,
245252.
Briscoe, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Norbury, C. F. (2001). Phonological processing, language
and literacy: A comparison of children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss
and those with specific language impairments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42,
329340.
Broder, P. K., Dunivant, N., Smith, E. C., & Sutton, P. (1981). Further observations on the
link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Educational Psychology,
32, 838850.
Brooks, P., & Weeks, S. (1998). A comparison of responses of dyslexic, slow learning
and control children to different strategies for teaching spellings. Dyslexia, 4, 212222.
Bruck, M. (1993). Word recognition and component phonological processing skills of
adults with childhood diagnosis of dyslexia. Developmental Review, 13, 258268.
Bryant, P. D., & Bradley, L. (1985). Childrens reading problems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Capute, A. J., Accardo, P. J., & Shapiro, B. K. (Eds.). (1994). Learning disabilities spectrum:
ADD, ADHD, and LD. Baltimore: York Press.
Cataldo, S., & Ellis, N. (1988). Interactions in the development of spelling, reading and
phonological skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 11, 86109.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Catts, H. W., Fay, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of
reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 45, 11421157.
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Pintilie, D. (1982). British Picture Vocabulary Scale.
Windsor: NFER Nelson.
Ehri, C. L. (1992). Reconceptualising the development of sight word reading and its rela-
tionship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, C. L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition.
Hove: LEA.
Ellis, A. W., McDougall, S. J. P., & Monk, A. F. (1996). Are dyslexics different? Dyslexia, 2,
3158.
Everatt, J. (Ed.). (1999). Reading and dyslexia: Visual and attentional processes. London:
Routledge.
Everatt, J., McCorquodale, B., Smith, J., Culverwell, F., Wilks, A., Evans, D., et al. (1999).
Associations between reading ability and visual processes. In J. Everatt (Ed.), Reading and
dyslexia: Visual and attentional processes. London: Routledge.
Everatt, J., Smythe, I., Ocampo, D., & Gyarmathy, E. (2004). Issues in the assessment of
literacy-related difficulties across language backgrounds: A cross-linguistic comparison.
Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 141151.
Everatt, J., Smythe, I., Ocampo, D., & Veii, K. (2002). Dyslexia assessment of the bi-scriptal
reader. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 3245.
Everatt, J., Steffert, B., & Smythe, I. (1999). An eye for the unusual: Creative thinking in
dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5, 2846.
Everatt, J., Warner, J., Miles, T. R., & Thomson, M. E. (1997). The incidence of Stroop inter-
ference in dyslexia. Dyslexia, 3, 222228.
Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (1996). The dyslexia screening test manual. London: The Psy-
chological Corporation.
Fergusson, D. M., & Lynsky, M. T. (1997). Early reading difficulties and later conduct problems.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 899907.
Frith, U. (1995). Dyslexia: Can we have a shared theoretical framework? Educational and
Child Psychology, 12, 614.
Frith, U., & Snowling, M. J. (1983). Reading for meaning and reading for sound in autistic
and dyslexic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 329342.
Gersons-Wolfensberger, D. C. M., & Ruijssenaars, W. A. J. J. M. (1997). Definition and
treatment of dyslexia: A report by the Committee on Dyslexia of the Health Council of the
Netherlands. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 209213.
Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York: Guilford
Press.
Ghelami, K., Sidhu, R., Jain, U., & Tannock, R. (2004). Reading comprehension and reading
related abilities in adolescents with reading disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Dyslexia, 10, 364384.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581586.
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Goulandris, N. K., Snowling, M. J., & Walker, I. (2000). Is dyslexia a form of specific language
impairment? A comparison of dyslexic and language impaired children as adolescents. Annals
of Dyslexia, 50, 103120.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by
integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The Phonological Linkage
Hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 4157.
Huntington, D. D., & Bender, W. N. (1993). Adolescents with learning disabilities at risk?
Emotional well-being, depression, suicide. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 159166.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, V. (1993). Phonological processing skills and The Reading Recovery
Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112126.
Jeffries, S., & Everatt, J. (2004). Working memory: Its role in dyslexia and other learning
difficulties. Dyslexia, 10, 196214.
Jeffries, S., & Everatt, J. (2003). Differences between dyspraxia and dyslexia in sequence
learning and working memory. Dyspraxia Foundation Professional Journal, 2, 1221.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley.
Lord, R., & Hulme, C. (1987). Kinaesthetic sensitivity of normal and clumsy children.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29, 720725.
Lovoie, M. E., & Charlebois, P. (1994). The discriminant validity of the Stroop colour and
word test: Towards a cost-effective strategy to distinguish subgroups of disruptive
preadolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 98107.
Lufi, D., Cohen, A., & Parishplass, J. (1990). Identifying attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder with the WISC-R and the Stroop color and word test. Psychology in the Schools, 27,
2834.
McGee, R., Share, D., Moffitt, T. E., Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Reading disability,
behaviour problems and juvenile delinquency. In D. H. Saklofske, & S. B. G. Eysenck
(Eds.), Individual differences in children and adolescents. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Miles, T. R. (1996). Do dyslexic children have IQs? Dyslexia, 2, 175178.
Miles, T. R., & Varma, V. (Eds.). (1995). Dyslexia and stress. London: Whurr.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1998). Segmentation, not rhyming
predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71,
327.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation:
Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69,
9961011.
Nicolson, R. (2000). Dyslexia and dyspraxia: Commentary. Dyslexia, 6, 203204.
Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (1995). Dyslexia is more than a phonological disability.
Dyslexia, 1, 1936.
Pennington, B. F., Groisser, D., & Welsh, M. C. (1993). Contrasting cognitive deficits in
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder versus reading disability. Developmental Psychology,
29, 511523.
Portwood, M. (1999). Developmental dyspraxia: Identification and intervention (2nd ed.). London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Raberger, T., & Wimmer, H. (2003). On the automaticity/cerebellar deficit hypothesis of
dyslexia: Balancing and continuous rapid naming in dyslexic and ADHD children.
Neuropsychologia, 41, 14931497.
Rack, J. P. (1997). Issues in the assessment of developmental dyslexia in adults: Theoretical
perspectives. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 6676.
Ramus, F., Pidgeon, E., & Frith, U. (2003). The relationship between motor control and
phonology in dyslexic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 712722.
Raven, J. (1976). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psycholigstists Press Ltd.
Reed, P. (1999). Managing dyslexia is understanding dyslexia: Implicit functional and
structural approaches in the articles by Cameron and his critics. Educational and Child
Psychology, 16, 5169.
Riddick, B. (1996). Living with dyslexia. London: Routledge.
Rourke, B. P. (1989). Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York:
Guilford Press.
Schonell, F. J. (1950). Diagnostic and attainment testing. London: Oliver Boyd.
Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A
modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139168.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Share, D. L. (1996). Word recognition and spelling processes in specific reading disabled
and garden-variety poor readers. Dyslexia, 2, 167174.
Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of
reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201215.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 469478, 486.
Smythe, I., & Everatt, J. (2000). Dyslexia diagnosis in different languages. In L. Peer, &
G. Reid (Eds.), Multilingualism, literacy and dyslexia. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for
name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174215.
Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Snowling, M. J., vanWagtendonk, B., & Stafford, C. (1988). Object-naming deficits in
developmental dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 11, 6785.
Solity, J. (2000). The Early Reading Research: Applying psychology to classroom practice.
Educational and Child Psychology, 17, 4655.
Spagna, M. E. (1996). All poor readers are not dyslexic. In B. J. Cratty, & R. L. Goldman
(Eds.), Learning disabilities: Contemporary viewpoints. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Publishers.
Stackhouse, J., & Snowling, M. (1992). Barriers to literacy development in two cases of
developmental verbal dyspraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 273299.
Stackhouse, J., & Wells, B. (1997). Childrens speech and literacy difficulties: A psycholinguistic
framework. London: Whurr.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407.
Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the difference between the dyslexic and the garden-
variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21, 590612.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The theoretical and practical consequences of discrepancy
definitions of Dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, & M. Thomson (Eds.), Dyslexia: Integrating theory
and practice. London: Whurr.
Stanovich, K. E. (1996). Towards a more inclusive definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 2,
154166.
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with
reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the Phonological-Core Variable-Difference
Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 2453.
Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (1997). Further thoughts on aptitude/achievement
discrepancy. Educational Psychology in Practice, 13, 38.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 136.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18, 643662.
Thomson, M. (2001). The psychology of dyslexia. London: Whurr.
Turner, M. (1999). Psychological assessment of dyslexia. London: Whurr.
Van Alphen, P., de Bree, E., Gerrits, E., de Jong, J., Wilsenach, C., & Wijnen, F. (2004). Early
language development in children with genetic risk of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 10, 265288.
Vernon, P. E. (1989). Graded word spelling test. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Visser, J. (2003). Developmental coordination disorder: A review of research on subtypes
and comorbidities. Human Movement Science, 22, 479493.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its
causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192212.
DOI: 10.1002/dys
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the
creativityintelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wechsler, D. (1992). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III. Sidcup: Psychological
Corporation.
Weeks, S., Brooks, P., & Everatt, J. (2002). Individual differences in learning to spell.
Educational and Child Psychology, 19, 4762.
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity, genius and other myths. New York: Freeman.
Wiig, E. H., Zureich, P., & Chan, H. N. H. (2000). A clinical rationale for assessing rapid
automatized naming in children with language disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
33, 359374.
Wilson, P. H., & McKenzie, B. E. (1998). Information processing deficits associated with
developmental coordination disorder: A meta-analysis of research findings. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 829840.
Wolf, M., & OBrien, B. (2001). On issues of time, fluency and intervention. In A. Fawcett
(Ed.), Dyslexia: Theory and good practice. London: Whurr.
Working Party of the British Psychological Society (1999). Dyslexia, literacy and psychological
assessment. Report of a Working Party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology
of the British Psychological Society, British Psychological Society, Leicester.
DOI: 10.1002/dys

Profiles of Strengths and Weaknesses in Dyslexia and Other Learning Difficulties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Profiles of Strengths and Weaknesses in Dyslexia and Other Learning Difficulties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DYSLEXIA

Published online 23 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience

You might also like