"And most screens of the good screens are public domain free to use and
require limited training"

 

Glen, can you please point me in the direction of said screening tools?


 

 

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Glenn Young
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:19 PM
To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2016] Re: LD Screening

 

No - LD screening is not used widely ... and it is very unfortunate ...
and where there is some screening ... this is limited data collection so
we don't even really know what the screening is finding. 

 

And the issue has been greatly confused by many people stating what
screening will "lead to" great expense  ... which is false 

 

And we really need to understand that the issue is not that programs
become obligated to test ... but it comes down to what is the 

 

"Essential element of the task"  which is ADA language" and in most
cases this is to teach someone how to read ... 

 

The obligation to prove the disability is not inherent in adult
education policy or law ... the first obstacle that that occurs for most
of the ABE students is when the get the level of having to take the GED
... almost all of what would be considered "accommodations" can be
described as "teaching approaches or enhancements"  

 

In ABE ... screens can be used to find indicators ,,, develop
interventions based on the screens and look at accommodations approaches
to compensate for the impact of the disability  ... all without having
to have formal testing .... And to make referral to other programs that
could test ... related to their essential function

 

And without screens there is no  hope of finding out if there is an
underlying disability that makes standard literacy training mostly
useless ... and not allow people to get to other services 

 

So there is no reason not to screen other than ...  I'm on a role today
... Socrates ... now FDR   "Fear its self"

 

And most screens of the good screens are public domain free to use and
require limited training 

 

So why not ... and collect data so we get some kind of profile of what
the screening is showing ... without that data we can't hope to change
policies and procedure 

 

 

Glenn Young

CSLD

530 Auburn Ave

Buffalo NY 14222

Cell 703-864-3755

Phone/Fax 716-882-2842

website: glennyoungcsld.com

________________________________

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of
RKenyon721 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:07 PM
To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2013] LD Screening

 

Hi Glenn,

 

There is certainly no simple answer when it comes to the process of LD
screening.  You have, however, included many important aspects about
screening in your response.

 

I want to take one step back. In my travels, I find that most adult
education and literacy providers are not asking which screening tool is
best, but instead, should we screen.... or shouldn't we bother~  

 

Unfortunately, it appears that the answer in many cases is not to
bother.  What I hear is --- "it is too expensive;" "it takes too much
time," "it takes someone who is trained," "it is not something we want
to promote," "we don't want to open that up if it means we have to
provide or pay for diagnostic testing."  

 

Do you and other subscribers think that LD screening is widespread in
adult education and literacy or not?  Is it considered a universal 'best
practice?

 

I would like to hear as many opinions by members as possible.

 

As always, I appreciate your participation.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Rochelle

 

 

Rochelle Kenyon
Moderator, NIFL/LINCS Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Center for Literacy Studies at the University of Tennessee
RKenyon721 at aol.com 
 
To post a message: 
Learningdisabilities at nifl.gov 
 
To subscribe: 
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/LearningDisabilities
 
To read archived messages:
http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/2008/date.html

 

 

 

A simple question can not really get a simple answer.  The issue is of
what screen to use is based on what you are trying to determine ... what
is the purpose of the screen?

And to make the simple question even harder , we once again come to a
question of definition ... are you defining dyslexia as any reading
problem (dys - lexia)_ or are you defining dyslexia as a reading problem
based in neurological disorder (or as the old term goes minimum brain
dysfunction)? 

Or to put in another way that Socrates would have liked ... While all
dyslexics have reading disorders not all persons with reading disorders
are dyslexics  (or are they?)  The truism or non-truism of this
statement in is in how you define dyslexia.

For the purpose of this reply ... I am looking at dyslexia as a disorder
that is part of the general term Learning Disabilities (as used in the
US not the UK) and is not a reading disorder based in lack of access or
opportunity but a reading disorder based in neurological disorder)

 

This distinction is critical in both looking for the disorder and
intervention .... And type of success expected and level of
accommodations needed to "achieve" literacy.  However far too detailed
of a conversation here .. back to the screen question 

There are two main types of screens out there ... ones that are
"correlation" screens and "causation" screens  (both Socrates and
correlation and causation in the same e-mail ... my college professors
would be proud of me) 

 

The correlation screens look at a set of issues that tend to be common
with people who are LD/dyslexic and assess "risk" based on these
correlations

The other screens use "manifestations in reading " that are common to
people with LD and see the "causation" in these reading events

So the first type of screen tends to look at case history (special ed
background, troubles in certain jobs, remembering events, etc) and the
second screen tends to ask people to perform tasks such as reading words
or recalling sequences.  

 

The two screens are clearly both valuable for different needs ...  If
you just trying to see if the person is likely LD or not ... then the
"correlation" screens are of best use, and the Washington State screen
is the only truly validated screen in English ... again ...  only for
risk factors for LD (including dyslexia and such) ... and remember this
screen is based on the notion that person attended American schools for
at least till about the 8th grade, and can work if they went to school
for a shorter time ... but it is less reliable  ...

This screen was developed by looking at low-income poor reading adults ,
including women .... of many races and cultures .... So it is far more
appropriate for our populations and really got us far away from the idea
that dyslexics were all "fair haired left handed boys with allergies
from the suburbs" ... and believe me ... twenty years ago ... that was
the basis for most of the screening tools ... 

There are also "correlation screens in use in UK that are different then
the US ... and in the UK there are some that are a hybrid of the two
types. 

These "correlation screens" do not address what is going on in reading
skill (or looking at "function") but only on the likelihood of LD ( or
looking at  "form")  --

This screen is used primarily by programs to determine if the persons is
a likely candidate for full scale testing in order to determine them as
eligible for classification of being a person with LD  ... for future
accommodations or for eligibility or modification in services.

This type of screen says little or nothing on what this person actually
will need in the form of literacy interventions ...  since LD/dyslexia
is very individualized ... we can not really build a "classroom"
intervention based only on this type of screen.  The "causation" screens
are far better for "classroom" interventions ... 

 

If you're looking for screens to look for actual manifestations of
dyslexia, and the individual impacts of dyslexia (causation) ... for
classroom issues ... etc ... there are a ton of them and most of them
seem to have some basis of success and I hesitate to recommend any over
another ... however there are key elements that seem common to the best

Also --- not being a teacher ... I will now be going into elements that
others can handle best ... but here is a rough evaluation of what seems
to work well

 

But for the sake of screening ... you can use mostly the same tools for
both general groups (all reading failure, and specific reading failure
due to neurological disorders) and ... 

The most successful are screens those that mainly use nonsense words and
syllables ,,, since this tends to eliminate "sight" and "memory" reading
,,,

 

So a person sees "dog" enough ... they have memorized it to the point of
having relatively instant recall ... but can not use "dog" to build
upon, "dog" is like a single letter to them with that single sound ...
so the word "dogma" is completely foreign  ... 

So for testing of there skill levels ... you need to use nonsense words
and syllables so you can see if they have "phonetic and phonic skills" 

 

Also ,,, as research has clearly shown ... phonemic awareness is
something that is critical for adults (and children) with literacy
limits regardless of if its overt dyslexia or lack of access or other
issues ... 

So screens that test if the person can actually hear and distinguish
fine tones are critical .... And then that they have the ability to link
the fine tones to a given letter or collection of letters ... and recall
them consistently is key to any good screen.

 

And again, the classic issue of sequencing ... screens that include
issue of sequencing and recalling in sequence is very important ... so
giving a set of unrelated numbers and or letters ... and seeing how many
the person can recall in the right order ... etc.

So ... screens or a combination of screens that include these components
seem to be the best ... in identifying a person at risk of dyslexia ...
and  Please remember always ... screens are not diagnostic tools ...
only screens for likelihood 

 

Glenn Young

CSLD

530 Auburn Ave

Buffalo NY 14222

Cell 703-864-3755

Phone/Fax 716-882-2842

website: glennyoungcsld.com

 

 

 

________________________________

Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler
Florence" on AOL Food
<http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002>
.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20080609/29f5de64/attachment.html