Abstract
Methods for identifying dyslexia in adults vary widely between studies. Researchers have to decide how many tests to use, which tests are considered to be the most reliable, and how to determine cut-off scores. The aim of this study was to develop an objective and powerful method for diagnosing dyslexia. We took various methodological measures, most of which are new compared to previous methods. We used a large sample of Dutch first-year psychology students, we considered several options for exclusion and inclusion criteria, we collected as many cognitive tests as possible, we used six independent sources of biographical information for a criterion of dyslexia, we compared the predictive power of discriminant analyses and logistic regression analyses, we used both sum scores and item scores as predictor variables, we used self-report questions as predictor variables, and we retested the reliability of predictions with repeated prediction analyses using an adjusted criterion. We were able to identify 74 dyslexic and 369 non-dyslexic students. For 37 students, various predictions were too inconsistent for a final classification. The most reliable predictions were acquired with item scores and self-report questions. The main conclusion is that it is possible to identify dyslexia with a high reliability, although the exact nature of dyslexia is still unknown. We therefore believe that this study yielded valuable information for future methods of identifying dyslexia in Dutch as well as in other languages, and that this would be beneficial for comparing studies across countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blomert, L., Mitterer, H., & Paffen, C. (2004). In search of the auditory, phonetic, and/or phonological problems in dyslexia: Context effects in speech perception. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 47, 1030–1047.
Blomert, L., & Willems, G. (2010). Is there a causal link from a phonological awareness deficit to reading failure in children at familial risk for dyslexia? Dyslexia, 16, 300–317.
Bosse, M.-L., Tainturier, M. J., & Valdois, S. (2007). Developmental dyslexia: the visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition, 104, 198–230.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149–180.
De Groot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L., & Van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600–629.
Hatcher, J., Snowling, M. J., & Griffiths, Y. M. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119–133.
Hazan, V., Messaoud-Galusi, S., & Rosen, S. (2009). Speech perception abilities of adults with dyslexia: Is there any evidence for a true deficit? Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 52, 1510–1529.
Hensler, B. S., Schatschneider, C., Taylor, J., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Behavioral genetic approach to the study of dyslexia. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 525–532.
Kramer, D. & Vorst, H.C.M. (2007). Communicatievragenlijst voor de opsporing van dyslectische leerlingen. Amsterdam. Thesis (Dutch). University of Amsterdam, Department of Psychology.
Pohar, M., Blas, M., & Turk, S. (2004). Comparison of logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis: a simulation study. Metodološki, 1, 143–161.
Ramus, F., & Ahissar, M. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: the difficulties of interpreting poor performance, and the importance of normal performance. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 104–122.
Raven, J.C., Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1979). A manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Tests. London: H.K. Lewis; San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.
Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., & Wimmer, H. (2011). Meta-analyzing brain dysfunctions in dyslexic children and adults. NeuroImage, 56, 1735–1742.
Saviour, P., Padakannaya, P., Nishanimutt, S., & Ramachandra, N. B. (2009). Familial patterns and biological markers of dyslexia. International Journal of Human Genetics, 9, 21–29.
Scerri, T. S., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2010). Genetics of developmental dyslexia. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 179–197.
Schumacher, J., Hoffmann, P., Schmäl, c., Schulte-Körne, G., & Nöthen, M. (2007). Genetics of dyslexia: the evolving landscape. Journal of Medical Genetics, 44, 289–297.
Tops, W., Callens, M., Lammertyn, J., Van Hees, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Identifying students with dyslexia in higher education. Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 186–203.
Van Strien, J. W. (1992). Classificatie van links- en rechtshandige proefpersonen. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 47, 88–92.
Ziegler, J. C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., Alario, F.-X., & Lorenzi, C. (2005). Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 14110–14115.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ineke van Osch for her help with the development of tests, Paul Brouwer and Nihayra Leona for their work and patience in programming many of our newly developed tests, and Jan Hoogeboom for his tremendous efforts in the processing of data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tamboer, P., Vorst, H.C.M. & Oort, F.J. Identifying dyslexia in adults: an iterative method using the predictive value of item scores and self-report questions. Ann. of Dyslexia 64, 34–56 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-013-0085-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-013-0085-9