A Computerized Diagnostic Test for Dyslexia

Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 16 2-15-1985 A Computerized Diagnostic Test for Dyslexia Matthew R. Sorenson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Sorenson, Matthew R. (1985) "A Computerized Diagnostic Test for Dyslexia," Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 11 : Iss. 1 , Article 16. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol11/iss1/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact , . 146 A Computerized Diagnostic Test For Dye; 1exi a Matthew R. Sorenson WICAT Education Institute 1969) The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has estimated (HEW that 15'1, of the nation's schoolchildrpn Ruffer from sper:ific 11',,<Iill'l <Ii~I,lhilily, "I dy~d/xiil. M():II cd III/'Ifl "'lflolill IllIdi"(III(,~j"" dlilinq tilt' villly yed':l wheIl the foundation skiJI~i dllel ulfll,Li(lfidl outlouk towards learning are established, Because reading is important for studying all subjects, dyslexia can be a particularly unfortunate learning disability. There has been some disagreement on how to define dyslexia (Benton and Pearl 1978, Boder and Jarrico 1983, Kinsbourne 1982, 1983, Liberman 1983). If the definition is too broad, dyslexics may not receive the specialized attention they need. Yet if the definition is too narrow, many dyslexic kids will remain undetected and untreated. The lack of agreement on even the basic concepts has been characteristic of dyslexia research. The field has suffered from poor tests, poor research design, poor models, overspecialization by related disciplines, and a general lack of linguistic sophistication. Problems with reading tests Educators and researchers have been using standard reading tests for evaluating dyslexics (appendix A). These tests are not diagnostic, since they don't indicate specific problem areas. They are normative and therefore uninterpretable for non-normal readers such as dyslexics. They do not address the necessary linguistic issues involved in a language deficit like dyslexia. And finally they do not yield the fine-grained information needed to set up a useful remediation program. Problems in reading research Vellutino's (1979) review of dyslexia research pointed out the inadequate and inconsistent methods that have been used in sampling, experimental controls, data analysis, and interpretation. The result is a muddle of basic concepts and findings. 'Although competent researchers have recently become more actively invested in the study or dyslexia in young children, most descriptions of the disorder are based either upon clinical studies and informal observations or upon loosely designed experimental contrasts that have typically yielded equivocal and conflicting results,' (Vellutino 1979: 3) Models of reading One reason for and one result of this lack of productive research is the lack of any useful models of either reading or reading disability (Doehring et al 1981:26, Calfee 1982, Kinsbourne 1982:209). Without a theoretical model, experiments cannot be fruitfully constructed, nor experimental results fruitfully compared. 147 Too many specialists There are many disciplines interested in dyslexia and each o~e has their own focus to pursue. In neurospychology questions have arisen about the role of hemispheric dominance patterns (Satz 1976, Aaron 1982), localization of functions (Benson 1983), high level integration of information from ttw various associat ion area:'! (r;f>~;chwind1979), and the cytoarchitectural pathology of the cortex areas involved in readillq (Galaburda 1983). Vellutino (1979) and Liberman (1978, 1983) have argued convincingly that the behavioral problems observed among dyslexics can be best explained in terms of a verbal/decoding deficit. That approach was been taken a step further by those who would explain low level symptoms by positing higher level cognitive and metalinguistic dysfunction (Orton Society Bulletin 1980, Pirozzolo and Wittrock 1981, Tunmer and Bowery 1984) . Studies on monozygotic and dizygotic twins, as well as family histories, have shown a significant genetic factor in the distribution of dyslexia (DeFries and Baker 1983, Decker and DeFries 1981, Finucci 1978) . Also, delays in the basic maturational processes have been blamed for dyslexia (Fletcher and Satz 1980, Elkind 1976, DeHirsch 1984). Although the longitudinal studies for investigating the role of maturation are difficult to pursue, they are necessary; both for. a clear understanding of the disability itself, and for creating and evaluating remediation programs. A narrow view of language A general problem in this multidisciplinary landscape is that the redundant, recursive and abstract nature of language is unappreciated. The linguistic aspects of reading are usually taken to amount to a linear coding between sound and print. Even those who consider dyslexia to be primarily a language problem have been reluctant to look beyond word-level decoding. With very few exceptions (Vogel 1975, Kean 1984), the extent to which dyslexics have problems in morphology, syntax, lexical structures, and discourse processing have remained unexamined. The sorts of cognitive tasks that are required for dealing with language have also been slighted in favor of memory and sensory processing. For example, the skills we have included under the label classification need more attention. The ability to class elements into abstract sets must be involved in establishing a phonology, in making sense of morphological alternations, in relating words into semantic and syntactic word classes, in paraphrasing sentences, and in associating language tasks with the appropriate situations. Yet the dyselxia literature and the tests researchers have not been sensitive to these issues. used by dyslexia -=C \C .c .::I 6ungaJJ 6u~uJgal fiJowaw UOngJu~SSgIJ UOngU~W~JJS~p UOugJuuuap~ UOnuaug Ie ... \C Q.) :::') Q) Q.) c: CI.) E '" '" '0 ~ ~.s Ie '" '" .....~'E ...... ~ ro :x: "' ...... ...... u ;::::I+-> o <1> Q.) -.u u Ie c: :::n Q') Q.) '" '" '"<1> '"<1> '"ro v ~ ~.s .d ~ 0-.<1> '" CI.) ~~ '" .s.s ~ ::I Q u .--='" ~ 0 v Q E ..c Uvl 149 It appears to the WICAT Education Institute that there is a clear need for a fine grained and comprehensive diagnostic test for dyslexia. We have undertaken the development of a computerized test to fill this need. For the moment, we will call it the WICAT Reading Abilities Profile (WRAP). In establishing a conceptual basis for our computerized diagnostic test, we have tried to be as eclectic and empirical as possible. A framework that addresses the important issues and variables in the field is sche (...truncated)