JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Standardization of the Comprehensive Learning Test-Reading for the Diagnosis of Dyslexia in Korean Children and Adolescents
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Standardization of the Comprehensive Learning Test-Reading for the Diagnosis of Dyslexia in Korean Children and Adolescents
Yoo, Hanik K.; Jung, Jaesuk; Lee, Eun Kyung; Kang, Sung Hee; Park, Eun Hee; Choi, InWook;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop the computerized Comprehensive Learning Test-Reading (CLT-R) to evaluate the cognitive processes and achievements related to their basic reading ability and identify dyslexia in children and adolescents in South Korea. We also obtained the normative data and evaluated the reliability and validity of the test. Methods: We developed the CLT-R, including the word attack/nonword decoding, paragraph reading, sound blending, nonword repetition, rapid automatized naming, letter-sound matching, visual attention, orthography awareness, and digit span tests, for the purpose of diagnosing dyslexia. We investigated the reliability and validity of the tests and gathered the normative data from 399 subjects (male 48.9%), aged 5-14 years, from the last grade in kindergarten to middle school, dwelling in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province, South Korea. Results: No statistical differences were observed between the means of the tests and retests of the CAT. The mean of the correlation coefficient of the test-retest scores was 0.85. According to the construct validity test calculated by principal constant analysis using the oblique rotation method, 4 factors explained 70.0% of the cumulative variances. In addition, the normative data were obtained for all of the CLT-R subtests. Conclusion: The computerized CLT-R can be used as a reliable and valid tool to evaluate the reading achievement and reading related cognitive process in Korean children and adolescents in schools, clinics, and research institutes.
 Keywords
Dyslexia;Reading Disorder;Reading Achievement;Cognitive Process;Computerized Test;Standardization;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Jung JS. Specific learning disorder. In: Cho SH, editor. Biological child psychiatry. Seoul: Sigmapress;2014. p.157-175.

2.
Lee YS, Hong KY. A pilot study: specific reading disorder in Korean elementary school children. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Asso 1985;24:103-110.

3.
National Institute of Special Education. Special education indicators of Korea. Seoul: National Institute of Special Education;2002.

4.
Jung JS, Yoo HK. Specific learning disorder. In: Hong KY, editor. Child psychiatry. 2nd ed. Seoul: Hakjisa;2014. p.202-210.

5.
Kim DI, Lee DS, Shin JH. Introduction to learning disabilities. Seoul: Hakjisa;2003.

6.
Hallahan DP, Lloyd JW, Kauffman JM, Weiss MP, Martinez EA. Learning disabilities: foundations, characteristics, and effective teaching. 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon;2005.

7.
Gresham FM. Responsiveness to intervention: an alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In: Bradley R, Danielson L, Hallahan D, editors. Learning disabilities: research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;2002. p.467-519.

8.
Siegel LS. Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Can J Psychol 1988;42:201-215. crossref(new window)

9.
Lee DS. Diagnosing and screening learning disabilities: problems of the discrepancy criterion and roles of content-specific basic academic skills. J Emot Behav Disord 2001;17:19-41.

10.
Hur SJ. Diagnosis and assessment of learning disabilities: problems of previous models and some suggestions. Korean J Learn Disabil 2005;2:31-53.

11.
Rourke BP. Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: past and future. Learn Disabil Q 2005;28:111-114. crossref(new window)

12.
Scruggs RP 3rd. Robert Pickett Scruggs III, MD: a conversation with the editor. Interview by William Clifford Roberts. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 2002;15:391-402.

13.
Kim YO. The ideals and pitfalls of the responsiveness to intervention model to identify students with learning disabilities. Korean J Spec Educ 2006;41:141-161.

14.
Sousa DA. How the special needs brain learns. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press;2006.

15.
Kim DI, Jung KJ. Exploring an integrated model for identification of learning disabilities: beyond the discrepancy and responsiveness-to-intervention. J Emot Behav Disord 2008;24:133-161.

16.
Bishop AG, League MB. Identifying a multivariate screening model to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: a longitudinal analysis. Learn Disabil Q 2006;29:235-252. crossref(new window)

17.
Elliott JG, Grigorenko EL. The dyslexia debate. New York: Cambridge University Press;2014.

18.
Kettler RJ. Computer-based screening for the new modified alternate assessment. J Psychoeduc Assess 2011;29:3-13. crossref(new window)

19.
Denckla MB, Cutting LE. History and significance of rapid automatized naming. Ann Dyslexia 1999;49:29. crossref(new window)

20.
Mauer DM, Kamhi AG. Factors that influence phoneme-grapheme correspondence learning. J Learn Disabil 1996;29:259-270. crossref(new window)

21.
Chard DJ, Osborn J. Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: guidelines for accessibility. Learn Disabil Res Pract 1999;14:107-117. crossref(new window)

22.
Meisinger EB, Bloom JS, Hynd GW. Reading fluency: implications for the assessment of children with reading disabilities. Ann Dyslexia 2010;60:1-17. crossref(new window)

23.
Majsterek DJ, Ellenwood AE. Phonological awareness and beginning reading: evaluation of a school-based screening procedure. J Learn Disabil 1995;28:449-456. crossref(new window)

24.
Gathercole SE, Willis CS, Baddeley AD, Emslie H. The children's test of nonword repetition: a test of phonological working memory. Memory 1994;2:103-117. crossref(new window)

25.
Wolf M. Naming speed and reading: the contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. Read Res Q 1991;26:123-141. crossref(new window)

26.
Ise E, Schulte-Korne G. Spelling deficits in dyslexia: evaluation of an orthographic spelling training. Ann Dyslexia 2010;60:18-39. crossref(new window)

27.
Grainger J, Ziegler JC. A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Front Psychol 2011;2:54.

28.
Bosse ML, Tainturier MJ, Valdois S. Developmental dyslexia: the visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition 2007;104:198-230. crossref(new window)

29.
Lobier M, Zoubrinetzky R, Valdois S. The visual attention span deficit in dyslexia is visual and not verbal. Cortex 2012;48:768-773. crossref(new window)

30.
Sattler JM. Assessment of children: cognitive applications. 4th ed. San Diego: J.M. Sattler;2001.

31.
Badian NA. Phonological and orthographic processing: their roles in reading prediction. Ann Dyslexia 2001;51:177-202. crossref(new window)

32.
Wolf M, Bowers PG. The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. J Educat Psychol 1999;91:415-438. crossref(new window)

33.
Beneventi H, Tonnessen FE, Ersland L, Hugdahl K. Executive working memory processes in dyslexia: behavioral and fMRI evidence. Scand J Psychol 2010;51:192-202. crossref(new window)

34.
Kavale KA, Forness SR. What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: a critical analysis. J Learn Disabil 2000;33:239-256. crossref(new window)

35.
Klingberg T. Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends Cogn Sci 2010;14:317-324. crossref(new window)

36.
Klingberg T, Fernell E, Olesen PJ, Johnson M, Gustafsson P, Dahlstrom K, et al. Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD--a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2005;44:177-186. crossref(new window)

37.
Georgiou GK, Stewart B. Is rapid automatized naming automatic? Presch Prim Educ 2013;1:67-81. crossref(new window)

38.
Denckla MB, Rudel RG. R apid "automatized" naming ( R.A.N): dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia 1976;14:471-479. crossref(new window)

39.
Kim DI. Basic academic skills assessment: reading. Seoul: Hakjisa; 2000.

40.
Ziegler JC, Goswami U. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychol Bull 2005;131:3-29. crossref(new window)

41.
Pennington BF, Lefly DL. Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Dev 2001;72:816-833. crossref(new window)

42.
Lervag A, Braten I, Hulme C. The cognitive and linguistic foundations of early reading development: a Norwegian latent variable longitudinal study. Dev Psychol 2009;45:764-781. crossref(new window)

43.
Baddeley A. Working memory. Curr Biol 2010;20:R136-R140. crossref(new window)

44.
Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol 2012;63:1-29. crossref(new window)

45.
Baddeley AD. Verbal and visual subsystems of working memory. Curr Biol 1993;3:563-565. crossref(new window)

46.
Just MA, Carpenter PA. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev 1992;99:122-149. crossref(new window)

47.
Swanson HL. Short-term memory and working memory: do both contribute to our understanding of academic achievement in children and adults with learning disabilities? J Learn Disabil 1994;27:34-50. crossref(new window)

48.
Baddeley A. Working memory and language: an overview. J Commun Disord 2003;36:189-208. crossref(new window)

49.
Baddeley A, Gathercole S, Papagno C. The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychol Rev 1998;105:158-173. crossref(new window)

50.
Georgiou GK, Das JP, Hayward DV. Comparing the contribution of two tests of working memory to reading in relation to phonological awareness and rapid naming speed. J Res Read 2008;31:302-318. crossref(new window)

51.
Bednarek DB, Saldana D, Quintero-Gallego E, Garcia I, Grabowska A, Gomez CM. Attentional deficit in dyslexia: a general or specific impairment? Neuroreport 2004;15:1787-1790. crossref(new window)

52.
Ans B, Carbonnel S, Valdois S. A connectionist multiple-trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. Psychol Rev 1998;105:678-723. crossref(new window)