COUNSELLINGINTERNSHIP
REPORTINCL UDING ANEXAMINATION OF THEBODERTEST OFREADING ·SPElliNGPATTER NS
JanetMart inPowell
FacultyofEducation MemorialUniversityof Newfoundland
51.John's.Newfoundland
March,l994
ABSTRACf
Thisreportdescribesathirt een-weekinternship programme completed at the Diagnostic:and RemedialUnit,MemorialUnivc:rsityof Newfuan dland tofulfilthe req uire me nts forthecompletio nofuMaster'sDegreein Educational Psychology. The purpose ofthe inte rnshipwas togain experientialknowledgeintheareaofassessment ami counse llingofchildren with learningdifficulties.
Generalinterns hipgoals, the activitiescarriedout to achievethegonls, and conclusionsregarding the effectivene ss and limitation softhe inte rnship are presentedin the firstsectionof therepor t.The secondsection cont nins thereportoftheresearchaspectoftheinternship.
Therese arc h componentinvolvedanexaminationofa lest commonly usedtoassess readingdisability,TheBoderTesst ofReading·Spelling Patter ns. Aconcurren tvalidity studyof thistestwa.~conducted and a preliminaryexaminationoflts constructvalidity.Thiny -e ne children refer red to theDiagnostic and RemedialUnitduringthe internshi p were given the Boder,WRAT·R,and WISC·R. Relationships between these testswere examined.
A correlationcoefficient of 0.89wasobtainedbetweenthe reading grade levels of TheBaderTestofReadingSpellingPatterns and thereading subtestof the WideRangeAchievementTest •Revised,thusproviding support for theBoder'scontentvalidity. However.support for construct validity was limited.
Theresearch findings are discussed with refer ence tothe use ofthe testin thelocal schoolsystems. Jt was concludedthaithelest is time- consuming10ad ministerand the informationit provides10the user maybe obtainedinlesstimc by usingothertests withbetter psycho metricpropertie s.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract•... .•... ...•.•.•..•... Ii
Listof Tables..•. .. • • • •...•.... ... .••.. .... . .. .•.. .. ... vi
CHAPTE R I-INTER NSHIP .. .... ..••.... . ..•.•. . . ...•.. ...I RationalefortileInternship. • .•• ..•.. . •..• •. .•. . ... •..I
Setting for theInternship.. .•.. . ... .4
InternshipGoals andActivities ... . ...5
Conclusion•..•...•• •.•. ... .•.•.••..•.. •..• •.•.. • •...• • ..1M
CHAPTE R 2-RESEAR CHPROJECT....•..•.•.. .. . ...2'\
Introduction•.•....•.•••... ... . ...• ... . ...25 Rationale.•.••.•••..•.••• •••.•..•••.•.•••. .•••...•.•...•25 Purpose•••••••••••••• • ••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• ••27 limitationsofthe Study .•... . ... ... •.• • • • • • • •.•.• •..27 Strength ofthe Study•..• ..• . • .•.. ... ... .. . ..•... ..2X TheBoderTest of Reading-SpellingPatterns ...•.• .•... ..2H Review of theLiterature .. ... .. ... . .. .. . . ....•... ...••. . .. 3fJ
Methodology ..
Researc hHypot heses . Researc h Perspective..•.. . .
Subjects .
Instruments .. ..• •.
Procedure Results .. . .. Discussion .
Conclusio nsand Recom mend ations
References... ... .. ..•• .. . .. ..
...64 ... •64 ... .. .. .•...• . .• .. .65 ..66 66 . ...68 .. 69
. 87
....90
...94
Appendix A:Tests Exami ned.. ....•...•. . . .... ... . . ...102
B:TestsAdministered .
C:Repo rtFormat •.... •. . D:ReadingList ...•...
...105 .107 . .•• ... .. ••..109 E: The Bod erTest ofReading-Spelling Patterns
Examin er 'sReco rdi ngFo rm...•.•... ....115 F:Addition a lDetails of Administra tionandScoring for
TheBoderTest ofReading-SpellingPatterns•.. ... 124 G:TheBoderTest ofReading-SpellingPatterns
Supple me ntaryTasks... . . .. . ... ... . . .•. 130
List of Tahles
TABLE
Means andStandardDeviations forWRAT. R,WISC·R and Boder•.• • • . . •.. • • • ••... • . . • . . 70 GroupSize,GradeEquivalentScores,and Standard
Deviations ofSubjects,CategorizedAccordingto theBixle r....7.1 Means and Stand ardDeviationsoftheReadingGroups fu r WISC· R FlO,VIOami PIQ .. .. . . ... . . ... ... . ...74 Means and Standard Deviationsof the ReadingGroupsfur WISC·R Factors,Verbal Compre he nsion. Perceptual Organization andtheThird factor. . . ... ... ... .... .•..76 MeanSimultaneous andSuccessiveSubtestDeviatio n OucdenrslindStandardDeviationsfortheSeven
Classifications ResultingfromAdministrationofthe Bud er.. 77 Analysis of VarianceofW)SC·RYerbal Inrelflgence
Quotie ntbyThreeCategories ofDyslexic Subjects.• .. ... ....7M Analysis of VarianceofwtSC·R VerbalComprehension FactorbyThreeCategories of DyslexicSuhjects.•. ..•.•..•.. tlO Analysis ofVariance of WISC·RSobresubyThree
Categoriesof DyslexicSubjects•••..•••.. .•.•... . ...XI Analysisof Vari anceofSimultaneousWISC·R Subresu by ThreeCategoriesof DyslexicSubjects... .. ...• X2 10 Mean Third Fa' rDevia tionOuoucms andStandard
Deviatio ns bytheIwc Groupings,Nondyslexlc and Dyslexic Subjects ..• . .. . . •... ... . ... .... . ... . . •. . . .. •...K3
TABLE
1] Analysisof Varianceof ThirdFactorbyTwo Groups of Dyslexic and Non-dyslexicSubjects.. . ... . ..•. .85 12 Analysisof Variance ofThird FactorbyTwoGroups
ofDyslexicand Non-dyslexicSubjects.,.. ..86
vii
CHAPTER ONE INTERNSHIP
Rationale forthelmernship
Aspart oftherequirementsforaMaster'sDegree inEducational Psycholo gy,students maychooseto eithercompleteathesis nr do :111 interns hip whichincludesaminor researchcomponent.The inte rnship option requires a minimumofthirteenconse cutiveweeksofplacement IIIa setting app ropriate toa student'seventualemploymentinterest.
The valueofexperie ntial training forcounsellorsiliunde rscored in the publica tionrelatingto internships formulatedby theFacultyIIf Education's Depa rtm ent of EducationalPsychology(1975),"11Ienature,the scope,and the specializationencompassed intheroleofthe counsellor require inte nsive training, a considerableportionof whichshouldbedevotedtosupe rvised experien tial tra ining"(p.l).
The intern,havinga desireto workas anelementary schoo l guidance counsellor,realizedtheimporta ncefor such counsellors to have developed competen ciesinthe area ofassessmentof children.Astudy hyPurcel l (llJH7) found that elementary school counse llors in Newfoundland ru tcd psychoed ucational assessmentastheirmost important function fromIIlist of
eighteenfunctions counsello rsperform. Otherfunctions include,in orderof importa nce: teacherconsultation, parentconsultation,programmingfor special needs,and individualcounselling.Obviously,the skillsneed ed to competentlyperfor mthe mostImport ant functions ofanelementary schoo l counsellor's job wouldneedtobe acquiredthroughextensiveon-the-job trai ning aftertheoretica lcoursewo rkhasbeencompleted.
Sattler (1988)outlinedthe following technicaland clinicalskills need ed tohe acompete nt clinicalas.sessor ofchildren.
1. Evaluate andselectanappropriateassessme nt battery.
2. Establishandmaintain rapportwithchildren.
3. Ad ministerandscore tests and otherassessment toolsby followingstandardized procedures.
4. Observe behaviour.
5. Interview parents, children,andteac hers.
6. Performinformal assessme nts.
7. Int erpretasses.smentresults.
8. Translate as.sess..ment finding.s into effectiveinte rve ntions (formulaterecommendations).
9. Co mmunicateassessment findingsboth in writingand orally.
to. Readand interpret resea rchin the field of c1iniC':11and psychoeducationalassessment.
11. Understand laws and governmentregulationsconce rningthe assessmentand placementof specialchildren(p.7).
In addition,Sattler (1988) suggestedthat clinicians wo rking with children in schoolsettings would benefitfrom a study ofremedial and educationaltechniques used to treat and educate special children.Finally, Saltierstressesthat studentsundergoingtrainingin theassessmentof children shouldreceive supe rvision in all phases of assessment,including test admin istrat ion,scoring, report writing.and consultation.
Conside ringthelevel of skillsneeded to assesschildre n properlyand the fact that practical experience is the mainavenue fordeveloping these skills,it was thereforefelt that a periodof internshipunderthetutelageof professiona lstaff employedinthe field of psychoeducuttonalassessmentof childrenwouldundoubtedlybe thebest methodtoincrease one'scompetency levelsinthe skillsneeded foreffectivefunctioningas an elementaryschool guidancecounsellor.
SettingfortheInternship
TheDiagnostic andRemedial Unitat Me morialUniversitywaschosen asthe setting for the internship.
The DiagnosticandRemedial Unitbeganin 1971asa centrefor educationalresea rch in learning disabilities.In 1972.remediationservices wereofferedand in1913 both the research andre medialservices combined toformtheDiagnostic and Remedial Unit.Itremained a unit ofthe Faculty ofEducation untilitwasclosedin1991asaresultof budgetcuts.
The functionsof the Diagnosticand Remedial Unit were:
Itse rved asa diagnosticcent refor childrenwho werereferred because of school-relatedproblems.
2. Itprovidedremedialservicesfor a limitednumberof students.
3. Itofferedateaching and praeticumsetting forspecial education courses anda supervisedtrainingplacementsite forpsychology, social work , specialeducation,educatio nalpsychology, andother education studen ts.
4. Itservedas aresearch site and databank.
Child renwerereferred totheDiagnosticUnitfor services such as assessment. remediationservices,school programmingsuggestions.home progrumrningsuggestions,participation in a universitypructicumteaching
progra m,andcounse lling.Referralsweremadeby school perso n nel,medical pro fessional s.socia lworkers,orparents.Reco rds indi ca tedthu trrorn 1975 to1990. 3483refer ral s weremade totheDiagnostican tiRemedialUnit(B.
Hopk ins, personalcommunication, January,1991).
Atthetimeofthe int ernship. theUnitstaf fconsiste dof four full-time me mbers: a unit director.two specia lizedteacher-d iagnostlclnns.andu secretary. The Unit Director provide dthe inte rnwithon-sitesupervision for thethirteen-week inter nship.
Internship Goa lsand Act ivities
The purpose oftheinterns hip,as state d in theDep artment of Educational Psychol ogy (1975) paper on the internshippro gram', is to provide:
For thedevelopmentof compete nciesforeach trai neebasedCUI his ne eds,pre viousexpe riences, and futu revocationalpla ns.
2. For practical experie nces that will bring Into focus the theoretical training received duringthe formal partof the
IThis paperwasthe mo st rece ntlypublished information abouttheinternshi p availab le whentheintern co mplet edtheinternshipin1991.
program.
3. For practicalexperiencesthat willenablethetra inee andthe depart ment to evaluatethe trainee'sabilityto effectivelywork in hischosenfield.
4. Opportunitiesfor the traineeto evaluate hispersonalbehaviour andwork toward makinganynecessarychanges.
5. For feedback fromtheinternsh ipse ttingtothe department regarding strengthsand weaknessesof its studentssothat program improvementscan be impleme nted.
6. For thedevelopmentof researchand problem -solving skills appropriate to theneeds of the student and thesetting, consider ingthenatureof hisplacementand his vocational plans (p,2),
In devising goalsfo r theinter nship,the internwas supervised and directedbyhoth theinternshipsite supervisor and theuniversity internship program supervisor.Eight goalswere decidedandagr eedupon,The goals were in keepingwiththe broad goals prese ntedabove andfellunderfi~e generalcat egories. Theareasinwhichthe intern intendedto increaseher experiencesandknowledgebase were: assessmentskills(both formaland info rmaltypes), counsellingand interviewingskills,remediationtechniques
reportwriting skills,andknowledgeofchildren's clinicalsyndromes.The generalcategories,specific goals.andthe activities performedtomeetthe goals areoutlinedbelow.
Assessmen tSkills
GOAL1;To gain moreknowledgeaboutassessmenttools such;ISnor m referencedtests and informalassessmentwhicnare usedto garberinfumunion aboutchildren withlea rn ingdisabilitiesand/ordevelopmentaldelays.
Norm-refer encedtests are testswhichhave beenstanda rdized ona normgroup. usually alarge.cle arlydefined group.These tests compare a person's perform anceto that of other personsthesame age or gra de.Norm- referen cedtests have beendeveloped to assess manyarea s,including intelligence;reading, arit hmetic,andspeningabtthles: visual-moto rskills; and adaptivebehavio ur(Satt ler,19~;Lerner, 1988).
Informal assessme nt Includes criterion-referencedtests(whichmayor maynot be standardized and normed) and teacher-madetests. Criterion- referencedtests,in contrasttonorm-referencedtests,describerather than compareperformanceand measuremasterylevels in theurea being tr-ued (Sattler,1988;Lerner,1988).
The activitiesperformedto meet the goal of gainingexperience with norm-referencedtests were:
The manua lsofstandardized tests were studied.A complete list of tests examined is presented in AppendixA.
2. The internadministered,scored and interpre ted standardized tests. A list uf thetests used and the number ofassessmentsis in Appendix B.
3. The intern observed theUnitDirectoradministering tests such asthe McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilitiesandthe Wide Range AchievementTest- Revise d.
The activitiesperfo rmed to meetthe goal of acquiringmoreexperience withinfor mal assessment techniq ues were:
1, Observationsthroug ha one-waymirrorof Unit staffas they used informal assessmenttechniquesto assess childrenwith reading disabilities, gene ra llearn ingdisabilities,autism,andcommunicat iondisorde rs.
2. The internviewedvideotapesofthe UnitDirector andformer Director as theyassessed autisticchildren.
3. The internvieweda trainingvideotapeof the administrationof thePsychoeducario nal Profile- Revisedto assist in preparat ion fortesting.
4. Discussions abo utinfo nna lassessment methods we re heldwith Unitstaff members,theJaneway Learning/BehaviourClinic's neurological paediatrician, and the neuro psychologist from the Gener alHosp ital.
S. Extensiveread ingwasdone inthe areaofInfor malA'i..<,c!l..smem.
6. The internconducted informalreadingassessmentswith27 childrenreferredto the Unitforassessment nnd/orremediat ion.
Collnse lljn&andInteQlje wjng SkillS
GOAL 2:To gainknowledgeand practice in gatheringinfo rma tion tactfully andefficientlyfrom parents about theirchild renand the familyenvironm ent.
The activitiesperformedto meet thisgoalwere:
1. Observat ionof the Unit'sDirectorasliiheconducted pre- assessmentinterviewswithparentsofchildrenreferred to the Unit.
2. The intern used the BackgroundQuestionnai refromSauter (1988)with all len parentsof childre nseenby theinternforassessment at the DiagnosticUnit.
3. Readin gs onassessmentofbehaviourbyinterviewmethodswere readbytheintern .
10 GOAL 3: To become more familiar withmethods of presenting assessment results10parents,of makingremediationsuggestions, andof counselling parentsneedingassistancein dealingwiththe problemstheyexperiencewith thei rchildre n.
The activitiesperfo rmedto meetthis goal were:
The observationof interviewsduring whichthe UnitDirector presented assessmentresultsandre mediation suggestionstoparents.
2. The intern conducted ten post-assessment interviewswith parents ofchildrenwho had been assessed earlierbythe intern to discuss assessmentresults andremediation recommendations.
3. Two counsellingsessions were conduc tedwitha parent of a childwithattentiondeficit disorder.The sessionsfocusedondiscussingthe parent'spast andpresent difficulties copingwith her child'sbehaviour problemsat schooland ideas were formulatedwhichsheinte nded tousein the futuremanagement ofher child.
4. Readings concerningpost-assessmentinterviewswith parents were readbytheintern.
GOAL 4: To gainmoreknowledgeabout andobta inexper iencein using interview techniques with children and to conduct individual counselling
"
sessionswith at least one child referred to the Unit.
The activitiesperformed10 meetthis goalwere:
The intern observed the Director as sheconductedintake interviewswiththree children whowerereferredto the Unit for assessmem.
2, The internconducted len intake interviews with childrenwhu were referred to the Unitfor assessmentanti were subsequentlyassessed by the intern.Aninterviewprotocol wasused based on the formalsuggestedby Sattler (1988).
3. Background readingin inte rviewing techniqueswithchildrenwas donebythe intern.Examplesof such readings were:Sattler'sinformationon
"The InitialInte rview withChildren"(pp,416-429) and ChapterTwo of Interviewing StrategiesforHelpersbyCormierandCormier(1985)pp.tt-IX. 4. A counsellingrelat ionshipwas continued with a childwho had been seen at the Uniton a weekly basisbythe internforfourmont hsbef ore the internshipperiod began. The counsellingrelationship started when the internwasdoing a practicumplacement inGuidance at the Diagnostic and Remedial Unit as part of the required coursework for the Maste r'sprogram inEducationalPsychology. Thetime commitment for that placement involved twodays a week fortwelveweeks.
12 Thechild, an adolescentwithattentiondeficit-hype ra ctivity disorder , was see n(orelevenone-ho ursessionsduringthe thirteen-weekinternship period. Additionally,theintern auended a school conferenceconcerningthe child'sschoolprogress andpromotion andalso metwiththatschoolboard's learning disabilityresourceteacherswhowereto conductalearningstrategies programwiththe child.Counsellingreportswe re writte nandpre sented to personne latboth meetingsand a finalreport was sent10 schooloffi cialsand parents attheendofthe internshipperiod.
Remed jation Tech niqyes
GOAL5:To becomefam iliarwitha variety
u r
re mediation techn iq uesinuse withchildrenwho have learningdifficulties.Theactivities performedtomeetthis goalwere:
1. A Unitstaffmember wasobservedbythe internas she conductedreadingremediationsessionswithchildren.
2. Remediation sessions werecarriedoutbythe inte rn ona regular basis with two children with whom she had conducte d psychoeducatlonalassessments. One childwas seenseven times for remediation activitiesinreading andthe otherchild wasseen eleventimesfor
13 re me diatio nactivities in reading andspelling. The UnitDirector andthe othertwo staffmembers provided supervisionand direction in theselection ofma terialsusedfortheremedia tion sessionsand ingiving fee db ack3txml thesessions.
3. Information onre mediationtechniquesthatwereparIofthe Unitcollection we reread,copied. andorganizedintn a remediat ionlite resourcecollectionbythe intern.
Informationfromothersources was alsoresearchedandcopiedbythe intern .Thematerialwas organized intosuchcategoriesas:
Readi ng remediatio nactivities Spellingrem ediatio n activities Mathematicsremediation activities Written language remediation activities
Memoryenhanceme nt activities
Classroommanagem entofchildrenwithauditory-p rocessingdeficits language stimulationgamesandactivities
Parentalsuggestionsfor child managementproblems
14 ReportWriting Skflls
GOAL 6:Todevelopskillsand obtainexperiencein the styleofwritingused inrepor ts of psychoeducatlc nal asse ssment s andremediati on sessions.
Theactivities performedto meet thisgoal were:
1. The intern studied manyof the psychoeducationalasse ssme nt andremed iationreports onfile atthe Unit.Thereports had beencompleted bypast and present Unitstaff
2. Rea dingsintheareaofreport writing were read, anexample be ing the report writing chapter ofSattler's(1988)Assessmentof Childre n (pp.725 -762).
3. Theinternwrote psychoedu cauonalreportsabout thelen children she had assessedduring theinternship. Anoutline ofthereport for matused isincludedinAppen d ixC. Consultationswere held with the Directorduringthe writingproce ss and revision smadewherenecessary . Additionally,remediationreportswerewritten abo ut thetwochildren see n re gularly forremediation byIhe intern during theinternsh ip perio d.
Knowledg e ofChildren 'sClinical Syndro mes
GOAL 7: Toexpandknowledgeof the natureof avarietyofclinica l syndrom esand disorders children experienc e and to becomemoreawareof
15 the diagnosticmet hods used to identify thesedisordersandthe possible le arn ing difficultieswhichmaybe associated with such conditions.
The activitiesperformed tomeet this goatwere:
Extensivereading inmany areaswasthe mainmethodusedIII meet thisgoal. Thetopics coveredin the readingsincludedthe following:
attention deficitdisorder,autism,gene rallearningdisabilitiesand neurological disorders, obsessive-compulsivedisorder, reading disabilities, scotopic sensitivitysyndrome , socialskills deficits.and tourette syndrome . Acomplete lis t ofthereadings is included inAppendixD.
2. Info rmal discussionswereheld betweenthe internandthe DiagnosticandRemedialUnitstaff conceming scoto plcsensitivitysynd rome, re a d ing disabilities , commu nication disorders, and attentiondeficitdisorder.
Topicssuch asgeneralle a rning disabilities,attentiondeficit disorder.lind neurologicaldisorders werediscu ssedwithpersonnel at theJa neway Learning/BehaviourClinicandthe neuropsycholog icalstaffof the Gen eral Hospital.
3. The intern observed the Health Sciences Centre neuropsycholog istand hispsychologicalassistant astheyinterview e d and admi nisteredneuropsychologicaltests to patients. Althoug hthe internhad wanted toobservesuch assessmentscarried out withchild re n, that wasnot
16 possib le10 arrange as fewchildren wereseen fo r neuropsy chological assessment duringtheperiod of theinternship.
Thepatients seenwere: in-patientwit hepilepsyresulti ngfrom a childhood bra in abscess and an out-patientwho hadsustained ahead inj ury in amo tor veh id e accident. TheneurcpsychotogisrInform edtheintern about thenatureandpurposesofthetest batterythai wasused anddiscussed varioustypesof Inter pretivefin dings.
4. The internspe nt a day atthe Learning/ Behaviou rClinic.a divisio nofthe Child Develo p mentProgram, at theJanewayHo spital.the provinc e's onlychild ren'shos p ital.The Learning/BehaviourClinicis an assessmentservice forchildren withlearningand/orbehavioral problems.
Theclinic'spaediatric neurologi standthepsycho logistgaveverba lsummaries ofth e case histories ofthre e childrenwho were beingseenth at day for follow -upap pointme nts.The in ternrev ie wedthemedical charts for the thre e child r enandsatinonthe sessionswiththechil drenandtheirparents.One childwasdiagnosed with AttentionDeficitDisorder andthe othertw o child re nwere diagno sedwith mixeddevel opmental dela ys.
5, The internatte ndeda day-long seminarsponsored bythe Newfou ndlandPsychol ogical Association.Thesessionsattendedbytheintern wereon thefoll owingtopics: excessivedietaryco ncern in female adolescents
17 and children;and estimatingpremorbidintelligen ceusing the Natinnal ReadingTe st (NAR1).
Resej![J;h Proiect
GOAL8: To comp leteaproject wh ic hwouldmeet theresearchrequire ment forcomple t i onoftheinternshipandwhichwouldbe relevantanduseful10 theinternin possiblefuturecareer roles of elementaryguidancecounsello r oreducatio nalpsychologist.
After consult ation with theDiagnosticUnitDirector andtheFaculty Supervisor. theinte rnunde rtooka researchprojectwhichhad lhe following purposes:
Toco nduct a concurrentvaliditystudy betweenTheBod e rTcst ofReading -Spellin g Patte rns,a screeningtest for readingdisa bilities,andthe Reading su btest oftheWideRangeAchievem e ntTest-Revised.a widelyused scr eeningmeasureof ach ievement in Reading,Spelling,andArithmetic.
2. To comparethe readingdisabilitysu btypesidentified byThe BoderTestofRe a dtng-SpellingPatte rnswith theWISC·Rverbal inte ll igence quotler us, and Kaufman ' s three factor scores and categnrtearions of informatio nprocessingsubtestsfro mtheWechsle r IntelligenceScale for
IS Childre n-Revised ,Thepurposewas 10 seeifthe variousfactorswouldvary in thesame way as describedby the validationresearch present edin the manu alfor The Bode rTest ofReading-SpellingPatter ns.
Details of the research componentofthe internshipare presentedin the secondchapter ofthis report.
Conclusion
This chap teroutlined the eightgoals the intern had set outto acco mplishinthethirteen-week internship period. Themain focus of the goals wasto engage in avarietyofactivities designedto furthertheintern's compete ncein the skillsthat are consideredto be essem•.tlto effective functioning in the role of elementaryschoolguidancecounsellor.
Activities designedto enhanceskillsin theareasofpsychoeducational assessment.progra mming for specialneeds, individual counse llingandparent consultat ionwere performed throughout theinternsh ip.Teacher consultation, however,which is consideredtobean importan ttechnical and clinical skill neede dtobe a competent clinicalassessor ofchildre n, could no t be addressed inu satisfactorymanner.Thetiming of the interns hip. whichwasfrom May 10August.Icf tlittletime when theUnitand the schoolswere operat ing
I"
concur rent ly.As a result,theintern was not able to engage in as much teacherconsultation as she wouldhaveliked nor wasshe able to observe childrenin the schoolselling, another impor ta nt face! of assessment of children.
Since completingthe internshipthe intern has had experienceworking as an elementaryschoolguidancecounsellorandwouldliketo make u comparisonbetween intern ships in the school systemandin auniversity diagnostic and remedial clinic. There seem to he advantages und disadvantagesto both.
As mightbe expectedfroma special unitwithin auniver sity selling suchasthe DiagnosticUnitithad the advantage of having more slaff resourcesfromwhichthe interncoulddraw upon. A schoolusuallyhas the services of onlyone guidancecounsellor.
Secondly,the Unit's access10alargenumber of children,referred from allpartsof theprovince andwiththeir myriaddifficultiesprovidedarich training ground for interns wishing to develop thei r ski ll~ in the psychoeducatio nal assessment of childre n.Such a populationbaseallowed the intern exposure to abroad rangeof disabilitiestha tcanaffe ct children.
For example,childrenwere seen who had autism. communicatio ndelays.
20 developmental delays.learning disabilities.epilepsy, aneruicn deficit hyperactivity disorder.etc.
Thirdly, theUnit's stresson parentalinvolvementinthe child's assessment isindirectcontrasttothefocusthatmany schoolstake,which is, thatteacherinformationisthemoreimportantaspectofthe assessment data
gatheringprocess. Havingparentsviewtheirchildren throughone-way mirrorsandrep ortingtypical anduntypicalbehaviourpatternsisan invaluable contributiontothe validit yof the assessment outcome.
While parental observationisimposs ible toachieveat (hepresenttime inthe schoolsetting, atleastintheworkscuings10whichthe intern has been exposed. the experie nce hasma dethe internmoreawareofthelimitations of puttingchildreninunfamiliarsituationsforsoonperiods andhopi ng thatan adequatesampleoftheir capabilities has been made.Asaresult. the inte rn realizestheimpor tance ofthepar entInterviewwhenassessing childre n.
Whileassessingchildre nsincetheinternship experience .theinternhasoften discus.~edwith paren tshowtheir children havereactedtothe testingsituation and thishashelped intheassessment process.
An internshipin a diagnosticcentrehad anumber of advantages;
however,therewere limitation sonsuch an intern shipsettingfora school counsellor.Althoughpsychoed ucetional assessmentis a major function of an
21 ele me nta ryschoolguidancecounsellor'sjob.the rearcother functio n....such as crisis intervention,teacher consulta tion.group counselling, prevent ative guida nce. etc. At the timeofthis internship, experienc e inthese areas, co uld havebeen more adequately obtainedinthe school se llingastheDiagnostic Unithad alimited mandate to assessandprovide re media tio n servicesfur child ren.
The schoolseulng alsowould have allowed theinterntobeucr understandthe excessivedemandsplaced upon a guidancecounsellor in the elementaryschool setting.Assessmentissuchatime-consumingaspect orthe job but the other types ofdemands mentionedpreviou sly, such as crisis counselling.teacherconsultation, social servicesliaison. ere.compete forthe cou nsellor'stime and thuspUIaddedpressureon the counsello r. The DiagnosticUnit staff had morena rrowlydefine d job functions and didnut havethe same typeofjob stresses.
Finally, theschoolsett ingobviously is ve ry differentfro mthesetting in auniversitydiagnost icclinic and providesmuc hinformatio n thatis invaluabl eto a counsellorin assessingchildren'slearningdifficulties and in pla nning inte rventi o n orrem ediatio n.For example,inform ati o n concerning teachers'pe rsona lities,discipline methods,class achieve me nt level s. school spirit, etc. can be importanttoknowwhendiagnosingchildre n's learning and
22 behavioraldifficultie s. Notbeingamemb erof the schoolsta ff makesit more difficultto find out aboutthese aspects of school functioning.
In retro spect,boththeUniversityClinic settingand theschoolsetting appear to have mutuallyexclusiveand somesimilaradva ntagesasinte rnship placementsfor students desiringexperience in the assessmentofchildren.
Ide ally, thestude nt counsellorwouldbe bestprepared byspe nding time in bothkinds of settings.Theschool placement,however, wasnotavailableat the timein theMaster 'sprogram whe n internshipswereusually scheduled- that is,in theSpringsemesteraftertheProgram'scourseworkhas been completed.
The intern's skills inassessing, counselling,and consultationwere imp roved byherexperie ncesduring the internship. The choice of an internshipat this sitesupp lemented to a large degreethepracticalexperienc e that wasobtainedthroughthepre-pracucumand praet icum periods thatwe re required bythe Educationa lPsychologyMaster 'sProgram.Therequired pre- practicum period washalfaday for twelveweeks and theinte rnchoseto spe ndthis pre-practicum period with an EmployeeAssistanceProgram coordinatoremployedbyalocal utility compan y.Asmentionedpreviously, the requiredpracticum period wastwodaysa week fortwelvewee ksandthe inte rn chosetheDiagnosticU,lil asthesite forthisexperi enc e.
23 The experienceofthe practlcum ledthe intern todevelo p an Interest indoingher internship researchin the urea ofreading disubillties.with specificfocus on TheBoderTest ofReading-SpellingPatternswhichwasthen beingused bysomeeducationalpsychologistsand elementaryschool counsellorsin our provincialschoolsystemto diagnosereading disabilities.
This researchallowedthe internto delve into the areaofreading disabilities and obtain knowledge whichhas proved to bevery helpfulinher subsequent employmentas an elementaryschoolguidancecounsellor.Prior10doingthis research, the Intern hadonly completed two undergraduatecoursesin readi ng.
Thesupervisiontheinternreceived fromtheDiagnostic Unit'sDirector was invaluablein providinginsightinto the assessmen tprocess withchildren . TheDirectorobservedthe internassessing children ,made snggestkms as 10 thechoice of assessmen tandremediationmaterials,providedconstructive criticismaboutreports andassessmenttechniques. wasalwaysuvuihrblc10 answerquestionsposed by theintern,andmade availabletothe intern her extensivereading and audiovisualmaterials.
At the halfway markof thethirteen-weekinternshipperiod the Directo r,theFaculty Superviso r,and theintern met to assess the intern's progress in accomplishing the goals thathad beenset. At theendofthe thirtee n-week period theDirectorandtheintern met againtodecidehow
2.
well thegoalshad been met. Theintern's FacultySupervisorwas unableto attendbecause he hadlefttheprovince on atwo-yearwork contractshortly after theintern had finishedhalf theinternship.
CHAP'IER TWO RESEAR CllPROJECf
Introduction
Inorder10 fulfil the requirementsof the inter nship optionofferedby thegraduateprogram inEducational Psychology, aresearch projectmustbe completedbytheintern .Asthemainfocus ofthe thirteen-weekinternship isto gainpracticalexperience.theresearch expectationisnotas extensive,IS that expectedwhen astude nt take s the thesisoption.Theresearch should take upaminorpartofthetimespentdoingtheintern ship and mustdeal withaproblem ofthe type usuallyconfrontedbyapractising counsellorinthe setting the internis working(DepartmentofEducationalPsychology,1975).
Rationale forResear ch
Illiteracy is a seriousproblemfotma ny Canadians.Theprovince of Newfoundlandisestimat edtohave oneofthehighestilliter acyratesin Canada.Dependingonthe measuresused,Newfoundl and'silliter acyratehas beenestimatedto be from a quarter to nearly ahalf of the population (StatisticsCanada,1991;SouthamNewspaperGroup.1987).Someof the
2.
implications of illiteracyforpeopleare pooreremploymentprospects,lower standardsofliving,lowerself-esteem,and inability10 take part in many leisure-oriented and work activitiesthat requirereading. While lack of opportunitiesforschoolingmight bea contributor to the province' shigh illiteracyrates,manychildrenleaveschool nothavinglearnedtoread.
Readingdifficultyisthe mostcommon reasonforstude nts being referredforspecialeducationservices. Good teststodiagnosereading difficulties are an importantparroftheassessment toolsusedby special educators,guidancecounsellors. andeducational psychologists.Considering the caseloadscarriedbythesepractitionersinpsychologyandeducation,tests thatprovideusefulinformationand are also quickto administer andscoreare among the most valued tests inan assessmentbattery.
Itwas withthe intenti onofinvestigating a testwhichwasbeing used bycounsellorsand educationalpsychologistsin our provincial schoolsystems that theinte rn decidedto do researchinvolvingThe BaderTest of Reading- SpellingPattern s [Boder&Jarrlco,1982).Thistestpurpo rtsto diagnose three typesofreading disabilit iesand prescribesremediatio n techniques for each subtype,yet thetestis not norm-referen ced. Because of theclaims madebyBoder&Jarricoas to the test'spurpose and use and becauseit
27 appears tobe usedlocally as areadingdisabilitydiagnostic tool,theinte rn decidedthatthetest meritedacritical review ofitspsychometric prope rties andanevalua tionofitsusefulness.
Purpose of theResearch
The purpose ofthe researchwasthree-fold:toconduct aconcurrent validitystudy of TheBoderTestofReading-SpellingPatte rns;toattemptto replicatesomeoftheconstructvalidityfindingsthaihavebeenpresented in suppo rtofThe Bode rTest;and to examinethevariabilityofKaufman's (1975)intelligence testfactorscoresandcategorlzaticnsofinformation processingstylesamonggroupsofdyslexic and non-dyslexicreaders.subtypcd usingBader's reading disability classification system.
Limitations of theStudy
This studyis limitedbythenumbe rof subjects available totheintern . A maximumnumberof31children didnotprovidenumbersnecessaryfor statistical pro ceduresappropr iateto thehypothesesgeneratedfrom the critical reviewofre latedresearch.Inspite ofthislimitation,thisexplorato rystudy representsa promising areafortheo retical reasonsaswellasforitspractical implicatio ns.
28 Strengthof the Study
To datethere has beenno publishedstudyof the concurrent validity ofthe Boderusing theWRAT· R,
The BoderTestof Reading-SpellingPatterns
The BoderTest of Reading-SpellingPatterns:ADiagnost ic Screening Test forSubtypesofReadingDisability (Boder&Jarrlco,1982)purportsto differentiatedevelopmental dyslexiafrom nonspecific reading disordersand ident ify readingdisability subtypeswith differing remedial implications.The diagnostic concepts and proceduresthatled to thedevelopmentof the Boder Test evolvedfromthe clinicalexperienceof Dr.ElenaBoder in her position us a paediatricneurologistinNeurology clinics inthe school syste mandthe Cedars-Sinai Medical CentreofLosAngeles, California. Althoughthe childre nseenin herclinicswerereferredbecauseof behaviourproblems, mostofthemhad reading problemsthat referralsources felt weresecondary to the behaviourproblems. Dr.Boderwonderedwhethersome ofthe behaviour problemsweresecondary to an underlying specific reading disability.Shefellthat makingsucha distincno nwas crucial to thetype of therapyand remediationtha iwouldwork best with thechild.
2.
Dr. Boderwantedtodevelopa defin itivedirect diagnosis approach10 thediagnosisof'developmental dyslexia'as abeliefalter na tive10the 'diagnosisbyexclusion'thatshe claimedwasmost widely usedbyphysician...
todiagnose dyslexia.Sheaccepted the direct diagnosismethodadvocatedby several researchers (Critchley,1970;Orton,1937;Thompson.1966),thatof identifying dyslexic errorsofcognitivedysfunctio ninthe reading andspelling perfo rma ncesofgoodnnd poor reade rs, hopingtoelicit definitivesigns of devel opmenta l dyslexia.
Extensive useinherneurology clinicsofanotherinformalreading
inventoryandher owntwo-partspellingtest ledBoder to observethatthe spellingof most poorreaders lagged considerably behind their rea ding. She foundthatgoodreaderscould spell correctlybetween 70 and100percent of words intheirsightvocabularies,at grade level,whereaspoorreaderscould rarelyspell as many asSOpercent of thewordsin their sight vocabularies correctly at their ownreadi nglevel. Shethuspostulated thatthismarked reading-spellingdiscrepancywasthesinglemostconslstemsingleindica torof developmentaldyslexia.
Threedyslexic read ing-spellin gpatternsemergedfromBuder'sanalysis of the spellingrecordsof childre nide ntifiedas dyslexicbytheexclusion
30 method. Bcder went on torelate these reading-spe lling patternsto cognitive componentsofthe rending process.She adopted the premisethatreading is essentiallyatwo-channelfunction,requiring the automatic integration of intactvisualandauditoryprocesses,bothperipheraland central.From there she likened thereadingperformancesinher reading lest10 these visualand auditoryprocesses.Shedescribed the abilityto recognize words in thesight vocabulary as a global processwherebywords arc processed as an instantaneousvisualgestalt and theabilityto decode unfamiliar words phoneticallyas beingan auditoryanalyticprocess.
The test, then,is based on the premisethatthe dyslexicreader hasa characte risticpattern of cognitivestrengths and weaknessesint'vodistinct compone ntsofthereading process: the visualgestaltfunction andthe audito ryanalyticfunction.The visual gestalt function underliesthe ability to developasightvocabularythrough visual perceptionand memory for whole words;theauditoryanalyticfunction underliesthe abilityto developphonic word-ana lysisskills. Reading and spellingperformancesare analyzedto deter mine a child'spattern of cognitive strengthsand weaknesses.
Thetwo basic componentsof the reading-spelling processassessed by the Bode rTest,Boder claims,are the two cognitivefunctions thatarebasic
31 tothetwostandard methods of initialreadinginstruction:the whole-word method and thephonicsmethod. Boderconte nds that thesetworeading process cognitive components correspond to the gestaft-slmuhuncous processing and the analytic-seque ntial processsing that. accord ing (II
neuropsychologicalresearch evidenceshe cites,aremediatedby therightuml left cereb ralhemispheres.respectively.
Bode r& Jarricc (1982)provide an operationa ldefinition of 'developmental dyslexia'as"areadingdisability in whichthe readingand spelling performancegivese....denceof cognitivedeficitsin either the visual gestaltfunctionorauditory analyticfunctio n,or both- (p.5).Theygive:t
coro llary of thisdefinitionas "when thereading andspelling pcuemofpour reade rsgivesno evidence of such cognitivedeficits, the rea d ingtJi!iahilityis rega rded as nonspecific ratherthandyslexic~{Boder&Jarrico,19N2,p_';).
The P.oder testconsistsofareading anda spe llingtest.Theread ing lestmaterialincludes13graded wordlists, gradedfromPre-primer10 Adult.
Each list contains20words,half of whichare phonetic and halfofwhicharc nonpho netic.The oddnumbered wordsineachlist arethephonetic wunls and theeven numberedwordsaretheno n-p hon etic worth.Bud er&Jarrico (1982)describe'phonetic'wordsas wordsthat looklike they soundorwords
32
inwhichallof the letter-soundcorres pon dencesarc standa rdand pervasive in English spelling. 'Nonphonetlc' words,the n,are those in whichoneor more of the leite r-sou ndcorresponden cesisunusual,including words with silent letters thatlire not sounded in the spoken word. A copy of the Examiner's Record ing Form for the Reading test is inAppendixE.
Themainobjectiveofthe Readingtest is to identify the child's sight vocabulary sothe word lists are presented in two ways:flash anduruimed.
If thechilddoesnot readthewordwith inone secondit is not consideredin his sightvocabu la ryas thesewordsare supposedly wordsa childcan read instantlyas whole -wordconfiguratio ns,or ges talts. Ifthechildcorrectly ident ifiesthe wordwithin len seconds then theword is considered 10have bee nidenti fied by the child'suseofphon ic word -analysisskillsand indic at es a child'sability 10 readwords not in his sightvocabulary. The examineris asked torecord allmisreadi ngsofwords the childmakes,The starting po int for the testis at the pre-pr imerwordlist ifare ading.problemis suspected, regardless ofIhe child's age. ICthereis no susp icionofa readingproble m, the starlingpoint is two gradesbelowthe stude nt'sactua lgrade level.Inany case,thestar tingpointshouldnever behighertha n the fifthgrade. Areading leve l is det erminedwhen the studentreads six or fewer words from a listat
JJ flashpresentation . Specificinformationon admini stration andsco ring is containedin AppendixF.
TheSpelling test follows the administrationof there a dingtest. The examineris asked to prepare two individualized spe lli ng lists onthe basisof thestude nt'sreadingpe rformance.Ten known wordsareselectedfrum the Flashcolumnatthechild'sreadinglevel or actualgradele vel, whicheve r is lower,and one grad ebelowif required (lenwordswhich the childcouldnot identifyarealsochosen). Anequal numberofphoneticand nonphoncuc wordsare chosen. Itissuggestedthat a specialefforthe made bythe examinerto include a number ofmuhisyllabic word s inthe spellinglist. The purposeof the knownwordsspelling lististo determi neif the childisabletil spellwo rdsthat are in his sightvocabulary and thereby deter m inewhether Ihe reading-spellingdiscrepancyis in the norma lor dyslexicrunge.The purpose oftheunknown wordslistis to assess the child'sabilitytousesound/sy mbol correspondencesin spellingwords not in hissightvoca b ulary. Scoring proceduresfor the spelling testsare includedinAppendixF.
Explanationsof thesubtyp es of developmen taldyslex iathatBuder devisedare asfollows:
34 Dysphonetlcreader: Thereading-spelling pattern ofthis group indicatescogniti ve deficitin integratingletterswiththeir sounds, with resultingdisability indev eloping phonet icword-analys isor decod ingskills.
This group hasno grossdeficit invisualgestaltfunction.
2. Dyseideticreader: There ading-spelli ng patternof thisgroupindicates cognitive deficit invisuallJIemory andperceptionforlette rs and whole -word configurations orgestalts.with resulting disabilityindeveloping asight vocabulary. This group has no grossdeficit in analyticfunction.thatis,no disability in developingphonic skills.
3. Mixed Dysphonetic-Dyseideticreader:Thereading-spelling pattern of this gro u pindicatesa combinatio nof the cognitivedeficits ofthedysphone tic and dyseldeticsubtypes,with re sulting disability in developingbothsight vocabularyand phonic skills. Thisgroup maybe virtua llyalexic,thai is, nonreadersand nonspetlers.
Bo der's testalso classifiesreadersinto the following categorie s : nurmal re ader,readerswithanonspecific reading disabilit y and readerswit h an undet ermine dpatter n.BOilerdescrib es thenorm al readeras one whose reuding-speflingpattern reflects strengthsin boththe visualgestalt and auditoryanalyticfuncdonsof readingandan automaticintegrationofthus'"
functions. Readers with nonspe cificread ingretardation typicall y possess a
35 readin g levelthatisless thantwoyears below grade lev e l hutthereading retardationis not considered to be due10cognitivedeficiL~sotheirread ing- spe llingpatte rnwou ldbe similartothe normalgroup. Finally,the undete rmine d category inclu d esindividualswhosereadi ng-spe llingpatternis essentiallytha t ofa dyseideticbut whoseread ing leve ls are higherthan that grou p. More detailedInformatio npertainingtothe administratio nand scor ing of th etest.includi nga copy of a Diagnosti c Summary For mis con tai ned inAppend ix F,
In ad ditiontothereadin g andspelling te sts,Boder end Jarnco(1982) suggest that a numbe rof suppleme n tarytasksmaybegiven. Alphabetta..;k..
are usedas diagnostic aids withchild ren whose~ightvo cahulart es are below the preprim e rlevelorwhoare no treading at all. Syllahicatingtasksand drawingthe face ofaclockfrommemory are othertaskssuggested as means ofproviding additio na linfo r mationabout the severityof aread ing disability, ofcorrobora ting the readersubtype,or offeringmore informat ion withwhich to developremedial strateg ies. Adescription of su pplemen tarytasksis presented inAppen dixG,
36 Reviewof theLiterature
~.t.!::H'BoderTf51 ofReading. SpellingPatterns
Extensivereviewofthe literatureresu ltedineight reviews of the Boder, six of whichwere criticalof thetest 's psychometricproper ties (Reynolds,1984, 1986; Schrank.1985;Shanahan,1985;Bing,1985;andHynd, 1984). Particularcriticismsregardingpsychometricsfromthesereviewswere:
thelest hasnonormativedata,nostandardscores, gradeequivalentsareused (usage of wh ichhas been condemnedby theInte rnatio na l Reading Associationsince1981),readingquotientswhichaTCbased on mentalage arc used (mental age being anoutda ted concept in psychoeducationa l assessment),and the spellinglistsused are not thesame for everychild.
Alexander(1984) critiquedthe testusinga reading theo ry and reading diagnosisfra mework. Sheclaimsthelest viewsreadi ng asa "text-driven"
process us opposed to the view ofreading as an"inte ra ctive"process. She saysthelestbasno ecologica lvalidityasare a dingdiagnostic tool;itis a limed,oralreadingta sk of wordsiniso lation whichisno tatalllikethereal read ingsitua t ion.
37 Inher criticalrevieworThe BodcrTestofReading-Spellin gPat tern s, Smith(1983)claimsthat theevidence for the validityof Buder'sreading disabilityclassificationsisindirect. Smithalsostatesthatthecorrelational constructvaliditystudies done{i.e.,electrical brain activity, performance on tests of speechperception,and comparisonofperformancesontheBuder withperformanceson the WlSC·Rsubtests) mainlyshow thntonlythe
"dysphonetic"subgroupexhibitdeviantpatterns intheir neurology or behaviour.Hynd (1984) also expresses thisview.
Inaddition tohercriticismthat theBcd er test has noecological validity,Alexander(1984)also Ihinks thaithe test isnot se nsitive 10 specific readingdisabilit ies of studentswho have a sightvocabu lary below the preprimerlevel andisnotsuitableforindividuals whoseread ing prob lems arc no t stemmi ng from prob lemswiththeauditoryanalyticorvisu algestalt aspectsofreadingdecodi ng. Alexande r says the testis only usefulin scree ningindividuals whohaveproblemsdecod ing words.whichwou ld lea ve outmany children who havedifficulty withthe comprehensionaspect of read ing.
Schran k(1985) and Bing (1985)suggestthatthe admi nistrat ion directionsaccompanying thetest areconvolutedand complex. Schrank (1985), Shana ha n(1985),and Hynd ( 1984) questionthe validation infor matio n
38 outlinedin the testmanualbecausemostof the work originated from unpublishedstudiesO(unpublisheddoctoraldissertat ions.
The authorofoneof rwo reviewscontainedinthe NinthMental MeasurementsYearbook,Shanahan(1985)describesthe strength ofthe test asitsability10differentiatebetweench ildrenhavingsight vocabularyand phonics problemsinrea d ing.He saysas a quick screeningdevicetheBoder isprobably no betterorworsethantestslike the SiossonOral ReadingTest, the PeabodyInd ividual Achievem entTest. ortheWideRa ngeAchievement Testalthoughthe Boder, in comparison10 theothers, has not been standardized and is there fore lacking their psychometricproperties.
Withsuchserio us limitationsreponedinthe reviews,it is queried whetherusers of the testsareawareofthelest's faultsbutuseittoservea minorpurpose such asdifferent iatingwhethera childhasasight vocabulary or phonicsdifficultyor whethertheybelieve thetest'sclaimsanduseitto diagnosedifferentsubtypes of readingdisabilities.
Readj0i{pisabilitySubtypeResearrh
Subiyptngstudies have been carried out in oneoftwo ways: by admin isteringa battery of teststo a large sample of subjects and using
39 stat isticalprocedu res,such as factor analysis,todeterminewhethe rcoherent groupings canbeidentified or,hyconstructingcognitivedescriptionsof ind iv idual cas esand th e n cons idering towhat extentthedescript io ns may he said to bethe same ordifferentfromone another. In otherwords,the subg roupsareeitherempiricall y orclinicallyderived.
Boder andJarrico{1982)in thetestmnnuulsta tethat Bode rdeveloped herreading disability subtypes clinically afteranalyzingandsynthe sizingmuch ofthe empirically derived sub typingresearchdoneinthe1960's and1970's (Ba nnaiyne.1966; Bateman,1968;Den ckla,1977; Doehring&Hoshko, 1979;
Friedman,Guyer,&Tymchuk.1976;Kinsboume&warrin gton,1963:Mattis, Fre nch,&Rapin,1975;Myklebust,1960,1965;Petrauskas&Rourke,1(179;
Piro zsolo,1979).Bod er claimed that , althoughdiffere nt lestballeries and diffe rent criteria havebeenused. basicallythe subtypesidentifiedmainly ten dedtobeoftwotypes.givingevidenceof cognitivedisabilitiesin either visua lorauditorycha nnelfunctions.Asmentionedpreviously,her subtypes weredysphonetic,dyseidetic,andmixeddysphonetlc-dyseidetic.
Acli nicalapp roach which hasfeaturessimilartoBoder'scJinicllJly derivedclassificationsystemisthatof Seymour(1986). Basedonathree' component informat ion processing model he developed,Seymourdescribed threedyslexicsubtypesthatheclaime dwereno!distin ctbutweremorea
40 reflectionofthe most severe lyaffectedprocessingsystem. Thesesubtypes were:developmentalphonologicaldyslexics.orreaders whohad the most difficultiesprocessing words phonologically;visualprocessordysl exics,those who haddifficulties registering andpar singprinted words: andde velopme ntal morphemic dyslexics, those who hadimpairmentsin semanticanalysisof words.
Bakker (1979,1992)proposed that atleast twosubtype s ofdyslexia exist. Hisclinically derivedclassificat ion systemstemsfrom what he callsthe Balance Model of learningto read.He saysthai learningto readrequiresa developmentallychangingbalance of perceptualand linguisticprocesseswhich at the cerebral levelispara lleledbya changingbalanceofrightandleft he misphere subservience.He describesone dyslexicsubgroupas the P-type dyslexic. This subgroup is characterizedbyan overrelian ceon right- he mispher e processinvolving perceptualsynthesis,whichleadsto slow reading markedbymanyfragmentatio nerrors. (Fragmentationerrorsare wordsread as fragments ratherthan as one cont inuousword,e.g.,Amsterdamre ad as Am-ster-dam,and hesitation s). The Ltypcdyslexicis characterizedbyan overrelianceon left-hemisphere processessuch assymactlc-semantc processing andsuppressionof righthemispherestrategieswhich result in a
4\
disregard forthe perceptualfeatures ofthe ten: thisgroupreadsqu ickly un d makesma ny omissioner rors.
Wa tson.Goldgar andRysch on(19 83) usedcluste ranalysis and foun d threesubg roupsin an empirical studyinvolving23measuresofreadin g.
lan guage, auditoryand visualprocessing,memory.perce p tualcrga nieation.
andvisua l-motorcoordina tion for65 reading-disable dchild ren. The clusters were char acteri z edbythefollowing:(1)avisualprocessing deficit; (2)a generalizedlangua gedisorder;and(3) aminimal deficit subtype. Howeve r, fur theranalysisofthesubtype clustersrevealed thatthey were relatively heterog e neousandthus hadlimit e d clini calutility.
Tworesea rchersattempte dto validatethe "genetic dyslexic" syhtypc postulat e d byBannatyne (1971). Barmat yne proposedathree-dimensional regroupingsystemfor su bt esu of the WechslerIntelligence Test for Child ren whichwouldsu p posed ly enhancethedia gn osticutility of theintell ige ncetest results. The systemreclassifiesnine of thesubt esu in tothree composit e measuresthoughtto assesscon ceptua l,spatial,andsequentia l abilities.
Bannat yn e discoveredthat30% ofthere ading disabledchildrenexhibiteda disuncti velyorde redpro file of th ecompos itescore sand that within this gro up there was ahighincide nceofrea dingproblemsreported among biologi cal relative s. He thus pro posed thata"geneticdyslexic"subtypeofreading
42 disabil itymight be recognized byadistinctive profileof composite scores.
Decke r&Corley(1984)examinedWechslerIntelligence ScaleforChildren - Revise ddataobtainedfrom280 children(140 disabledreadersandtheir matchedoontrols)andwere unableto providesupportfor Bannatyne's subtype.They did,however, confirmBannatyne's observ ations thatdisabl ed reade rs, asa group,demonstrateauniqueandstatisticallyreliableSpatial>
Conceptual>Sequentialprofileofinte lligence lestcompositescores.
Two similar studiesalsoproduced numerous reading disability subgroupings.Lyonand Watson(1981)reported identifyingsixsubtypes after clusteranalysisof resultsofaba tteryofauditoryreceptivelangua ge,auditory express ivelanguage.and visualperceptual.memory. and integr ationtasks administeredto!OOreadingdisa bled childrenandSOnormal readers.Cluster analysisresultscarriedoutbyLyon,Stewart.&Freedman (1982)ina similar subtyp eidentificationstudyinvolvingyounger readingdisabledchild ren revealedthepresenceoffivere ading disabilitysubtypes.Ina19 8 5reviewof his ownsubtypingresearch andthatof others.Lyoncautions that many subtyp estudieshave notbeenable tobe replicatedbecauseofthe wide varietyof theoreticalassumprlonslin dmeasurement bauerles thaiareused in theresearch.
In a review of 31studiesthatprovide varioussubclassifications of
4) dyslexia,Malatesha and Dougan(1982)found that7studiesdescribetwo su b types, 21stud ies describethreesubtypes,and3 stud ies describ e(our su b types.To compoundthe complexityof thesefindings.mostof thesubtypes wer ederived usingdifferentassessmenttechniquesandclassificationcriteria.
HyndandCohen (1983),in their review of the literat ure on dyslexic subtypes. conclude d thatevidenceexistsfor at leasttwo, andpossiblyseveral, su btypes of dyslexicchildren. They concluded thatevidenceexists to support a subtypeofdevelopmental dyslexia associated with impairme nt in psycholingu isticabilities anddisord ered functioning of theleft (dominant) hemisphere , anothersubgroup in whom visual-spatialorvisual-motorskills are lacking and whomaybe deficientin righthemispherefunction ing,anda third , le ss well-d iffere ntiated group,who semembers experiencedeficitsin the skill areas tho ught to be subscrvedbyboth hem ispheres.
Spreen(1987) claims thatalthoughnogenera lagree ment00a specific reading disability subtypesystem has emerged,Boder's(1970) syste mis nne thatis usedfrequently. Some neuropsychologicaltextbooks(Knill &
Whishaw,1990;Hartlage&Telzrow , 1986) refer exclusively to Boder ' s system ofclassification when discussingreadin gdisability subtypes. Snowling(1991), however , says that although Bode r's classification systemwas oneof the best knownearly atte mpts to classifydyslexicsbasedonfunctional impairments,
44 Boder's met hod haslargelybeensupe r se ded.mainlybec ause of difficultie s in valid a ting themeasures used todefine the su bg roups.
Toaddanoth e rpoint ofview tothe readingdisability su btype is sue, Siegel,Leve y,&Ferr is (1985 ) claimthat subtypesofdevelopm en taldyslexia donot exist. Theyreviewed manysubtyp ingstud ies(1968-1985) and sugg es tedthat conclusivean dconvin cingevidenceofsubtyp esof rea d ing disab ilities has notemerged.Theycontend thatthe term"dyslexia" shouldbe used 10refer exclusiv ely10childrenwh oare signi ficantly retard e din lea rn ing the letter-so undcorrespondences of the languagein question.
AscanDeseen from theresearchprevio uslycited,read i ngdisability sub ty plngis stillacontentious and co mplex issuein the fie ld of learning disabilities.To embrace Bader's sub typeclassificatio nsystem anduseit and herscreeninglest astheonly methodof diagnosingread ingdisabilities would notbean action su pportedbythesubtypingresearch compl e tedto date.
Kolband Whishaw(1990) su ggest thatassessment of dyslexiawhich prov ides anumber of different evalua ti oncrite r iacom b inedwithcounse llingdire cted toward the specific difficultiesexperiencedbyeach individualis the most effectiveapproach for both research andremediatio ninthis area, So me con s tructva liditystu diesofBader's su btypes have bee ncarrie douran dthe researchis presented inthe next secti onof this paper.
ConstructValidity StudiesQfBQderSlIhlypes
Intheirtest manual, Bnder&Jarr ic o(1982) reporton sixresearch st udiespurportingtoprovidesupportfortheconstr uctvalid ityufher reading disability subtypes. Four of the sixstu d ieswe reunp ublished docrorut dissertati o nsandtwo were publishedresea rch pap ers.
Two ofthedoctoralstudies (Ginn,1979; Sm ith, 1970)analyzedwIse- R pattern s ofre a dfngdisa bledchildrendiagn osedintusubtypeshyT h e Buder Test ofReading-S pellingPatterns.Smith'sstudy fo undsimilarities between thedyseideticgroupandchildrenwhoseWISC·Rscoresexhibitedastrength inleft hemisphere tests aspostulatedbyBannatyne (1966).Childr e nwhose WISC-R palternsshow edstre ng thin right he mispheretests (spatial organization)exhibitedthe reud in g-spellln g patternsof Boder'sdysphoncuc group.
Ginn,in his19 79 doctor aldissertatio n,compa redver bal and per formancein te lligence quotientsfor asampleof 214 boys,100ofwhom wereeducationall yhandicapped. Of the91 children cate g orizedin tooneof Boder'sthreesub types(9 wereinthe Undetermine dcatego ry),asdiagnose d by Bader'stest,Ginnfo u ndsignificantdiffe rencesinmean verbal in telligence quotients amon gthethreesubtyp e s. Dyseldeticchildren obtained thehighes t
46 meanvcrbal lQscoreand mixeddysphonetic-dyseidetic childrenobtained the lowest. These results supposedlyconfirm the left and right hemisphe re processingstrengt hsexhibitedby dyseideticsand dysp hone tics respect ively.
However,research sincethattimeprovides noempiricalsupportfor the once believedpremises that thewiseverbalsubtestsinvolve more leftcerebral functioning andthe performancesubtests involve more rightcerebral function ingand thatalarge discrepa ncybetween the scoreswould indicate dysfunctionin onehemisphere or theother (Goodman&Whitaker, 1985).
Menken's 1981doctoraldissertationinvolvedthe studyofthe auditory processingmechanisminnormal and dyslexic readersas identified by the Boder. Menk en foundthat there was no difference in analyticfunction between nor mal and dyseidetic readers. Howeve r, dysphonetic readers showedweaknessinanalyticfunctionin that they made significantlymore errorsthanthe other two groups when askedto determine whetheraurally presented syllables were semanticallymeaningful or werenonsensical.
The fourthunpublisheddoctoraldisserta tionBoder cites doesnot provideany directevidencesupporting the readingdisabilitysubtypes.Sporn (1981)examinedthedistributionofthe Bodertr-:dyslexic categories - dysphoneuc ,dyseldetic,mixed dysphonetic-dyseidetic,and undetermined - accordingto socioeconomicstatusandrace. Sporn found no significant
47 differences in the distributionsbusedon socioeconomic status fur hnthM:XC!'>
and in the distributionsbased on race for the mules. Boderclaimsthutthese findingssuggest thattheBoder test can successfully discriminate between dyslexic subtypes among bothlow and middlesocioeconomic slaws children and thatthe findingschallengedefinitionsbyexclusionthat implythut dyslexia cannotor shouldnot be diagnosedin lowsocioeconomic status children.
Aaron's(1978)and Malateshu'sand Dougan's(1982)studiesarc cited inthe Boder manualas providingevidenceforthe construct vulidity nf Buder'ssubtypes. Aaron(1978)administereda psychologicaltestbattery to 42childre n.14 normalreadersand 28 childrenwho werediagnosedus reading disabledby the Badertest. His testsweresupposedtoreflect two types of information processing,the analytic-sequential and holistic- simultaneous, similartoBader's auditory-analyticandvisual-gestaltcognitive processes involved in thereading process.Headministeredfourtests:the WiseDigit Span subtest,tests ofmemory for faces, repro ductionof paired- letter stimuli,andreproduction of individual Imer-shapes. Test score analysis revea led thefollowing results:that the dyspnonetlc group (n '"14)identified significantly more facesthanthe dyseideticgroup (n'"]4); the dyspboneuc grouprecalled significanllyfewerdigits in sequence tha n the no rmal readers (n=: 14),however,thelevel ofstatisticalsignificance usedwas notthe
48 conventionallevel (p<.10);the dysphonetic group reproducedsignificantly morepairedlet ters as visualgestaltsthanthe dyscidencor normalgroups;on delayedrecall thedysphonetlc groupreversed morele tters and shapes than didthe dyseldenc andnormal readergroups. Theseresults led Aaron10 concludethatdyslexic- childrendeficientinone informationprocessingstrategy are normal inthe ether.Sucha conclusionis unwarrantedbecauseof the smallnumber of subjectsutilizedin the study,the levelof statistical significancechosentoreportresults, andthe assumpt io n thatthe fourtests Aaronadministeredreflectand exclusivelyrepresent thetwotypes of
informationprocessing beinginvestigated.
Malaleshaand Douga n(1982) useda dichotic listeni ngdigits task with normalanddyslexicreader sclassified by theBode rtest. Therewere 14first andsecond gradechild renineachof thethree groups -norma ls, dysphonetlcs, and dyseidetics.The authors foundno stgnlflcant differe ncebetweennormal anddyselde dcreader s on thelistening task but they did finda significant differen ce betwee nthe nor mal and dysphoneticgroups. Again,conclusio ns are basedonsmallnumbers (n ""14)in eachgroupandtheevidence that there aregroupdifferencesfor performa nceson one task isindi rect rather than directevidence for Boder'sclassificationsystem.
'9
Anumb er of otherconstruc tvaliditystud ieshavebeenconductedsince the publicationofTheBoderTest of Reading-Spelling Patterns in19H2.Of the fourresearchstudies. twodo notprovide conclusiveevidencefor Bodcr's classification system(Nockleby&Galbraith.1984;Van denBus,1984).One study,although itclaimstoprovidesupportiveconstructvalidityevidence.
suggests thatthetheoreti calbasis forBader'ssystemmayhe faulty(Flynn, Deering, Goldste in,&Rahbar,1992). Twostudies(Flynnet al.•1992;
Nockleby&Galbraith,1984) suggesttha tsomeofBoder's subtypesurcrcally variationsofread ingdifficultiesthat havelinguisticorigins. Vanden Blls (1984),intrying tovalida tethe visual processing aspectofthe subtypes,found little differe ncebetween thesubtypes butdid find differe ncesbetween the non-subtyped dyslexic andthe non-dyslexicgroups.Thefind ing.softhe [illest research are rep orted in the followingsection.
Nocklebyand Galbraith (1984)examined Boder's constructsof dysphonetic dyslexiaandnonspe cificreadingreta rdation.They compared groupperformancesontasksreq uiring analytic-sequentialundsimu ltaneous- gesta lt processing. Numbe rsweresmall, 13dyspbon etlcs, 9nonspeclflcs and 10controls,buttheauthorsconcludedthatthe two const ructsrece ived some supportbecausedyspbonetl cs andnonspccjflcs did notperformsignificantly differe nt fromthecontrolson anyofthesimultaneous-gestaltprocessing
SO measures.the dysphoneticsperformedsignificantly below thenormals on three ofthefouranalytic-sequentialprocessingmeasures,and thenonspeclfics performancewasnot significantlydifferentfrom the normals on sevenofthe
eightdependentvariables.
Interestingly, however.the factthat the two experimentalgroups performedsimilarly andsignilicantly belowthe controlgroup on the Lindamood AuditoryConceptualizationtest(Lindamood&Lindamood.1971) was construed asevidence againstBoder's classificationsystem. The LindamoodAuditoryConceptualizationTestdiagnosesphonetic skills difficulties. Nocklebyand Galbra ithsuggest that the dysphoneticand the nonspecif icreadersmay beon differentpointsof acontinuum of disabled readers whohave difficultiesprocessingthesounds of words. Boder (1982) had describedindividuals in thenonspecificreadingretardation category as having intact phoneticanalysisandvisualgestalt wordprocessingskills.
Vanden Bas (1984) presentedgroups ofdyslexic children,who had been subtypedaccordingto the Bodcr classificationsystem, with reading related tusksthatsupposedlytappedsome aspectsofthe cognitivedimensions on which,accordingtoBoder(1982), these childrenaresupposed 10differ.
Specifically,VandenBas carriedout twoexperimentsinvolvingletter
5\
processingin three dyslexicsubgroups.diagnosed according10Onder's crhcnu.
andthreecontrolgroups.
Resu ltsofva n denBos's firstexperi ment,whichinvestigate dletter-spoilt andleiter-scanni ng skillsusingstimuliprese ntedviathe twomodalities(ViSU'1 1 andauditory), didnot confirmthe hypo thesistha t uuditorial1ypres e nted lett er sets shouldbe processed betterhydyseidetlc than bydysphon eticreade rs.
The onlysignificant result was thatallthe dyslexic groupsperformedpoorer thanthecontrolgroupson theletter-scanning tasks.
The secondexperiment involvedletter-matching tusks using six conditions.Two significant findings emerged -thatallthree dyslexic groups mademoreerrorstha n the control groups when theletter-matchingcondition was onewhe rebycapita land lower caselett ers for thesame lett er were presentedas pairs(e.g., Bb or Dd)andthe subjec ts hadto dete rminewhethe r they werealike or differ ent; amithe controlgro ups perfor medbett erthanthe dysp honeticand mixed dyslexic groupswhen the condit ion involved pairsof letter sthathad physicallyconfusingdifferences(e.g.,OQ or EF)hut the dyseideticgrouppe rforme dsignificantlybetterthan the mixed dyslexic group.
Van denBosco ncluded that these resultssuggest a greatersimilar ity inthe natureoflette r processing problemsin dyslexic childre nthan is assumedin Boderand Jarrlco's (1982) readingdisability subtype test.Va ndenBos diu
52 cautionthat theseresultsfocusedonly onletter-processing andnotthe readingof wholewordssodifferentiation atthewordlevelwouldneedfurther rese arch.
In his 1984 reportof his study,van den Bos cited areplicatio n study ofAaron's(1978)workcarriedoutby Borst(1980)aspart of an unpublished Master'sthesisondyslexia.Borstfoundno differencesin the dysphoneticand dyseideticgroupsstudiedonthe measuresofmemoryforfaces (asusedby Aurea, 1978) andthewiseDigit Spansubtest. These findingswea ke n Aaron'sclaim thatthe dyslexic childismostlikelydeficient in oneoftwo lnfo rma tlon-processfngstra tegies, namelyanalytic-sequentialand holistic- simultaneous,while beingnor malintheother.As was mentioned previously, Boder used Aaron'sFindings tosupport her claimsforthe constructvalidity of her subtypes.
FlynnandDeering(1989),usingelectroencephalogramsrecorded during cognitive tasks,investigated the construct validity of Boder's classificationsystem.Twostudieswereconducted. Inthe firststudywhich examined 21dyslexicchildren and6 controls. the re were significant differencesbetween thedyslexicsubgroups and between the dyslexicand controlgroups on threeofthesix cognitivetasks.Significantdifferences were foundfor two of sevencognitive tasks inthe secondstudywhich used 33
53 dyslexic childre n and 31 controls. The authorsalsofoundsignificant differ e nce s in left tempo ral-pa rieta l theta activity in the electroencephalogramsofthedyseidetic child renwhichtheyinte rpretedIn meanthatthereading disabilities ofthatgroop maybetheresultofover-use of linguisticabilitiesrather thandeficie nt vi..ual-spaualskills.
Finally,Flynn,Deering,Goldstein,and Rahbar (1992)inves tigated the construct validityof Boder'sdyslexiasubtypesusingquant ifiedBEG.Their resultssupportedBoder'sconstructs.Using a sampleof27dyspbonetl cs.1I dyseidetics,and 6nondisabled childre n,theyexaminedEEd'amplitudes(If childre nwhile engaged in contextualreadingtasks andat rest.They found lefttemporaldifferences inchildren with dyscidetic dyslexb.andrightparietal- occipital differencesforthosewithdysphoneticdyslexia. They expected higher amplitudesin childrenwithdyslexia as opposed totheno ndisahlcd, basedonthe hypothesisthatdyslexicchildrenwouldovercompensate when engaged incontextualreadingtasks;however,theyohta inedthcopposite result.
Althoughthe results provided support forBoder's typology,the authors suggest thai Baderneedsto reconsider her theoretical buse. Onder hypothesizedthatchildrenwith dyseidetiedyslexiaread poorlybecauseof right-hemispheredeficits.Shealso believesthese childre nhavenormalleft-
