Rapid Naming and Phonemic Awareness in Children With or Without Reading Disabilities and/or ADHD.

Employing a large sample of children from Dutch regular elementary schools, this study assessed the contributing and discriminating values of reading disability (RD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to two types of phonological processing skills, phonemic awareness (PA) and rapid automatized naming (RAN). A second objective was to investigate whether comorbidity of RD and ADHD should be considered as an additive phenomenon as to RAN and PA. A total of 1,262 children, aged 8 to 13 years, were classified as RD ( n = 121), ADHD ( n = 17), comorbid (RD+ADHD; n = 16), or control ( n = 1,108). Phonological processing was assessed by standardized tests of PA and RAN. Disability groups were compared to each other and contrasted to the control group. Although results indicate substantial effects for all three disability groups on both types of phonological processing, and the RAN/PA compound measure in particular, effect sizes were considerably larger for the RD groups, as compared to the ADHD-only group. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Rapid Naming and Phonemic Awareness in Children With Reading Disabilities and/or Specific Language Impairment: Differentiating Processes?

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the predictive values of group membership for rapid automatized naming (RAN) and phonemic awareness (PA) in Dutch school children with and without reading disabilities (RD) or specific language impairment (SLI). METHOD: A composite word reading index and a formal SLI diagnosis were used to classify a total of 1,267 children aged 8 to 13 years old either as RD-only (n = 126), SLI-only (n = 21), comorbid (RD+SLI; n = 30), or typically developing (n = 1,090). RAN and PA were assessed with 4 standardized subtests. The clinical subgroups were compared to each other and contrasted with the control group. RESULTS: For each subgroup, results indicate substantial effect sizes of RAN and PA. However, the RD-only group seems to be more affected by poor RAN than the SLI-only group, whereas the 2 groups perform equally poorly on PA. The comorbid group was revealed as most severely impaired on all measurements. CONCLUSIONS: In studying RD and SLI, this research indicates that it is important to distinguish between RD-only, SLI-only, and comorbid groups. The comorbid group shows additive effects of both disorders.

The attentional blink in typically developing and reading-disabled children.

This study's research question was whether selective visual attention, and specifically the attentional blink (AB) as operationalized by a dual target rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task, can explain individual differences in word reading (WR) and reading-related phonological performances in typically developing children and reading-disabled subgroups. A total of 407 Dutch school children (Grades 3-6) were classified either as typically developing (n = 302) or as belonging to one of three reading-disabled subgroups: reading disabilities only (RD-only, n = 69), both RD and attention problems (RD+ADHD, n = 16), or both RD and a specific language impairment (RD+SLI, n = 20). The RSVP task employed alphanumeric stimuli that were presented in two blocks. Standardized Dutch tests were used to measure WR, phonemic awareness (PA), and alphanumeric rapid naming (RAN). Results indicate that, controlling for PA and RAN performance, general RSVP task performance contributes significant unique variance to the prediction of WR. Specifically, consistent group main effects for the parameter of AB(minimum) were found, whereas there were no AB-specific effects (i.e., AB(width) and AB(amplitude)) except for the RD+SLI group. Finally, there was a group by measurement interaction, indicating that the RD-only and comorbid groups are differentially sensitive for prolonged testing sessions. These results suggest that more general factors involved in RSVP processing may explain the group differences found.

Low verbal assessment with the Bayley-III.

Recently, the authors have developed the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal for developmental assessment of children with language impairment. The Low Verbal version consists of an accommodated cognition scale, and non-accommodated communication and motor scales. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the validity and added value of the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal for children with a language impairment, in relation to the standard Bayley-III-NL for children without impairment. We administered the Bayley-III Low Verbal to 69 children with language impairment, and the standard Bayley-III-NL to 1132 children without impairments. We used an evaluation form for test administrators and interviews with developmental psychologists to evaluate the suitability of the Low Verbal version for the target group. We analyzed the test results using nonparametric item response theory (IRT) to investigate whether test results can be reasonably compared across the two groups. The results of the IRT analyses support the validity of the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal: the test items do not suffer from differential item functioning (DIF) across the two groups, and thus measure the ability levels of interest in the same way. The results of the evaluation form and interviews confirm that the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal has added value for testing children with a language impairment, especially for children up to 36 months old. It is also suitable for children with general developmental delay. We conclude that the Bayley-III-NL Low Verbal can validly assess the cognitive, language, and motor development of young children with a language impairment and is the preferred instrument for this target group.

Accommodating the Bayley-III for motor and/or visual impairment: a comparative pilot study.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the validity and usefulness of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III) Low Motor/Vision accommodated version. Accommodations are adaptations to minimize impairment bias, without altering what the test measures. Of the items, 66% have Low Motor accommodations like enlarged materials; 62% have Low Vision accommodations. METHODS: Using a within-subject design, we tested 19 children with the accommodated and standard Bayley-III, in a randomly counterbalanced order. The children had motor and/or visual impairment and a chronological age between 22 and 90 months. The test administrators completed an evaluation form. RESULTS: A subgroup of children benefited from the accommodations; 2 children obtained a large raw score difference. Test administrators considered the accommodations as practical, and advantageous for most children. CONCLUSION: The Low Motor/Vision accommodated version seems to validly assess the development of this population. Future, larger-scale research should study whether the accommodations improve the construct validity of the Bayley-III.

Validity and suitability of the Bayley-III Low Motor/Vision version: a comparative study among young children with and without motor and/or visual impairments.

The aim of the present study was to examine the validity of the Bayley-III Low Motor/Vision version, and its suitability for children with motor and/or visual impairment(s). This version contains accommodated items, that is, adaptations to minimize impairment bias, without altering what the test measures. We hypothesized that the accommodations would not affect the item scores of children without impairment, and that children with impairment(s) would benefit from the accommodations. We tested 41 children without impairment and 63 children with impairment with both the standard Bayley-III and the Low Motor/Vision versions, in randomly counterbalanced order. The test administrators filled in an evaluation form. Results showed that the accommodations did not affect the test scores of children without impairment and did improve the test scores of children with impairment on the Cognition scale, while no improvement was found for the other scales. The test administrators indicated that the vast majority of the children with impairment had been able to show their abilities on the test and that the accommodations were beneficial in 29 out of these 52 cases. For some children, the accommodated instrument appeared to be unsuitable because the impairment was too severe. The conclusion is that the accommodations improve the validity of the Bayley-III when used with children with mild to moderate motor and/or visual impairment, especially with regard to the Cognition scale.

Low Motor Assessment: A Comparative Pilot Study with Young Children With and Without Motor Impairment.

Most of the developmental instruments that measure cognitive development in children rely heavily on fine motor skills, especially for young children whose language skills are not yet well developed. This is problematic when evaluating the cognitive development of young children with motor impairment. The purpose of this study is to assess the need for a Low Motor adapation of a standardized instrument when testing children with motor impairment. To accomplish this, we have adapted the procedures, item instructions and play material of a widely used and standardized instrument, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Second Edition (BSID-II, Bayley 1993). The Original and the Low Motor versions were administered to 20 children experiencing typical development and 19 children with motor impairment within a period of two weeks. Results showed that children with motor impairments scored significantly higher on the Low Motor version of the Bayley Mental Scale than on the Original version: a difference of between 5 and 10 points when the score is expressed in terms of a developmental index score. Results from children with typical development support the assumption that item content and difficulty remain unchanged in the Low Motor version.