A comparison of multiple methods for the identification of children with reading disabilities

There has been considerable discussion of the methods used for the identification of children with reading disabilities. This study ex-amined three different methods that could be used in the identification of children with reading disabilities and their consistency with teacher ratings of behaviors believed to be associated with reading disabilities. Standardized, norm-referenced measures of achievement, phonological processing measures, and curriculum-based measures of reading fluency were used with 40 children in Grades 1 and 2. Comparisons were made to determine which measures, if any, differentiated between children referred for reading disabilities (n = 20) and children who were progressing typically in reading in their general education classroom settings (n = 20). The results indicated sig-nificant between-group differences on standardized, norm-referenced measures of reading recognition, word attack, and comprehension; phonological measures of blending nonwords and elision; and reading fluency. Teacher ratings on the Dyslexia Screening Instrument were consistent with teacher beliefs regarding children’s progress in reading. All measures were found to correlate significantly with each other. However, correlations were generally in the moderate range, suggesting that the measures used did not measure the same read-ing skills or, in the case of phonological processing, the underlying abilities believed to be necessary for reading. Given the differences in tasks and the moderate correlations, it is likely that the choice of measures may affect the conclusions reached regarding a student’s reading ability. eading proficiency is crucial to t~- success in school and is also es-sential for economic survival in a technologically oriented world (Cal-fee, 1984; Palincsar & Perry, 1995). Most children learn to read without any difficulty, yet up to 25 % of all chil-dren experience reading problems i