Can self-report data on deficits in reading and spelling predict spelling disability as defined by psychometric tests?

Can self-report data on deficits in reading and spelling predict spelling disability as defined... Questionnaire data concerning spelling and reading self-assessment, habits, and school history were obtained for 79 adults (54 women and 25 men). The items were used to predict affectedness as defined on the basis of psychometric tests. For this purpose, two different discriminant analytical approaches (linear discriminant analysis and hierarchical classification with CART) were compared using a cross-validation design. 86.8–92.6% of the learning sample and 87.5–88% of the cross-validation sample were classified correctly. The CART model was preferred due to a balanced relation of sensitivity and specificity. Our results support the conclusion that self-report data are appropriate to substitute psychometric tests if these cannot be administered. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reading and Writing Springer Journals

Can self-report data on deficits in reading and spelling predict spelling disability as defined by psychometric tests?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/can-self-report-data-on-deficits-in-reading-and-spelling-predict-41Uk8WoOfA
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Linguistics; Language and Literature; Psycholinguistics; Education, general; Neurology; Literacy
ISSN
0922-4777
eISSN
1573-0905
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1007941403441
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Questionnaire data concerning spelling and reading self-assessment, habits, and school history were obtained for 79 adults (54 women and 25 men). The items were used to predict affectedness as defined on the basis of psychometric tests. For this purpose, two different discriminant analytical approaches (linear discriminant analysis and hierarchical classification with CART) were compared using a cross-validation design. 86.8–92.6% of the learning sample and 87.5–88% of the cross-validation sample were classified correctly. The CART model was preferred due to a balanced relation of sensitivity and specificity. Our results support the conclusion that self-report data are appropriate to substitute psychometric tests if these cannot be administered.

Journal

Reading and WritingSpringer Journals

Published: Sep 29, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off