Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities.

J. M. Fletcher, Kimberly Andrews Espy, D. J. Francis, K. C. Davidson, B. P. Rourke, S. E. Shaywitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study addressed the issue of specificity in reading disability by comparing two approaches to defining and selecting children with reading disabilities. One approach defined reading disability according to cutoff scores representing appropriate levels of intelligence and reading deficiency, whereas the other approach adjusted these scores for their intercorrelation through regression procedures. Results revealed clear differences in which children were identified as reading disabled according to the two definitions. However, differences in neuropsychological performance between children whose reading scores were discrepant or not discrepant with IQ were small and nonspecific for both definitions. The results of this study show that children identified as reading disabled vary according to the definition employed; at this point, there is little evidence suggesting any specificity of reading disability according to definition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)334-338, 355
JournalJournal of Learning Disabilities
Volume22
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reading
disability
regression
Disabled Children
Intelligence
intelligence
performance
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Education
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Fletcher, J. M., Espy, K. A., Francis, D. J., Davidson, K. C., Rourke, B. P., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1989). Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), 334-338, 355.

Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. / Fletcher, J. M.; Espy, Kimberly Andrews; Francis, D. J.; Davidson, K. C.; Rourke, B. P.; Shaywitz, S. E.

In: Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 22, No. 6, 06.1989, p. 334-338, 355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fletcher, JM, Espy, KA, Francis, DJ, Davidson, KC, Rourke, BP & Shaywitz, SE 1989, 'Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities.', Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 334-338, 355.
Fletcher JM, Espy KA, Francis DJ, Davidson KC, Rourke BP, Shaywitz SE. Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1989 Jun;22(6):334-338, 355.
Fletcher, J. M. ; Espy, Kimberly Andrews ; Francis, D. J. ; Davidson, K. C. ; Rourke, B. P. ; Shaywitz, S. E. / Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. In: Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1989 ; Vol. 22, No. 6. pp. 334-338, 355.
@article{c5326811b7c74d76a2d830ce9b3eea87,
title = "Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities.",
abstract = "This study addressed the issue of specificity in reading disability by comparing two approaches to defining and selecting children with reading disabilities. One approach defined reading disability according to cutoff scores representing appropriate levels of intelligence and reading deficiency, whereas the other approach adjusted these scores for their intercorrelation through regression procedures. Results revealed clear differences in which children were identified as reading disabled according to the two definitions. However, differences in neuropsychological performance between children whose reading scores were discrepant or not discrepant with IQ were small and nonspecific for both definitions. The results of this study show that children identified as reading disabled vary according to the definition employed; at this point, there is little evidence suggesting any specificity of reading disability according to definition.",
author = "Fletcher, {J. M.} and Espy, {Kimberly Andrews} and Francis, {D. J.} and Davidson, {K. C.} and Rourke, {B. P.} and Shaywitz, {S. E.}",
year = "1989",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "334--338, 355",
journal = "Journal of Learning Disabilities",
issn = "1469-0047",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparisons of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities.

AU - Fletcher, J. M.

AU - Espy, Kimberly Andrews

AU - Francis, D. J.

AU - Davidson, K. C.

AU - Rourke, B. P.

AU - Shaywitz, S. E.

PY - 1989/6

Y1 - 1989/6

N2 - This study addressed the issue of specificity in reading disability by comparing two approaches to defining and selecting children with reading disabilities. One approach defined reading disability according to cutoff scores representing appropriate levels of intelligence and reading deficiency, whereas the other approach adjusted these scores for their intercorrelation through regression procedures. Results revealed clear differences in which children were identified as reading disabled according to the two definitions. However, differences in neuropsychological performance between children whose reading scores were discrepant or not discrepant with IQ were small and nonspecific for both definitions. The results of this study show that children identified as reading disabled vary according to the definition employed; at this point, there is little evidence suggesting any specificity of reading disability according to definition.

AB - This study addressed the issue of specificity in reading disability by comparing two approaches to defining and selecting children with reading disabilities. One approach defined reading disability according to cutoff scores representing appropriate levels of intelligence and reading deficiency, whereas the other approach adjusted these scores for their intercorrelation through regression procedures. Results revealed clear differences in which children were identified as reading disabled according to the two definitions. However, differences in neuropsychological performance between children whose reading scores were discrepant or not discrepant with IQ were small and nonspecific for both definitions. The results of this study show that children identified as reading disabled vary according to the definition employed; at this point, there is little evidence suggesting any specificity of reading disability according to definition.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024689077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024689077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2738466

AN - SCOPUS:0024689077

VL - 22

SP - 334-338, 355

JO - Journal of Learning Disabilities

JF - Journal of Learning Disabilities

SN - 1469-0047

IS - 6

ER -