Reading Assessment and

Intervention: New research

approach in early ages and

learning disabilitiesCelestino Rodríguez Pérez

University of Oviedo

rodriguezcelestino@uniovi.es

Focus in

ASSESMENT

RESEARCH-PRACTICE

that have beed adapted to

EARLY YEARS

with the tool called EPI.com

and

INTERVENTION

LEARNING/ATTENTION

New tools oportunities

RAN/RAS

3

Impact in children development

Develop without

INTRODUCTION

Naming speed could be defined as the ability to name different

type of familiar stimulus (objects, colours, letters and numbers) as

quickly as possible. This ability is usually measured by Rapid

automatized naming and Rapid Automatized Stimulus-RAN/RAS-

(Wolf & Denckla, 2005) .

Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). RAN/RAS: Rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests. Austin, TX :Pro-ed

ASSESMENT

Objective

1. Analyze the effectiveness of the RAN/RAS test for the early detection ofattentional and reading difficulties in Spanish language.

2. Determine the power of times in naming speed and attentional variablesto predict group membership (LRD with/without ADHD).

Method

Participants: 101 students (64 men and 37 women) were divided into fourgroups:

Instruments

STUDY 1: NAMING SPEED AS A PREDICTOR OF

READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

40

1428

19

Control RD ADHD ADHD+RD

WISC-IV- (Wechsler, 2005)

EDAH (Farré y Narbona, 1998)

ASSESMENT

Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Objects

Colours

Numbers

Letters

Letters and numbers

MANCOVA showed that there were significant

differences between four groups.

(= 0.705; F(3,97)= 1.826; p=.023; η2=.110).

STUDY 1: NAMING SPEED AS A PREDICTOR OF

READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

Objective 1

ASSESMENT

STUDY 1: NAMING SPEED AS A PREDICTOR OF

READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

Results of discriminant analyses for predicting RLD group membership,

using stepwise method. Analyses with RAN/RAS variables and ADHD

symptoms for age conditions.

Standardized

Coefficients

Function

CoefficientsF

RAN/RAS test from 5 to 9 years of age

Raw.Col 1.000 .036 12.830

Constant -2.341

RAN/RAS test from 10 to 16 year of age

Raw.Col 1.000 .124 10.171

Constant -4.784

Notes: Raw.Col= score obtained in naming colors.

All models are significant at a p < .001 level. Only the variables that resulted statistically significant

are shown.

Objective 2

Classified 78% of the

sample correctly (83% CG

and 74% RLD group)

Classified 77%of the

sample correctly (90% CG

and 50 % RLD group)

Results of discriminant analyses for predicting ADHD group membership, using

stepwise method. Analyses with RAN/RAS variables and ADHD symptoms for age

conditions.

Standardized

Coefficients

Function

CoefficientsF

RAN/RAS test from 5 to 9 years of age

Raw.Col .609 .040 16.350

EDAH.DA .769 .037 12.685

Constant -5.810

RAN/RAS test from 10 to 16 year of age

EDAH.AD .606 .045 13.548

EDAH.I/H .922 .049 10.187

Constant -7.677

Notes: Raw.Col= score obtained in naming colors; EDAH.AD = attention deficit symptoms; EDAH.I/H = impulsivity/

hyperactivity symptoms.

All models are significant at a p < .001 level. Only the variables that resulted statistically significant are shown

STUDY 1: NAMING SPEED AS A PREDICTOR OF

READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

Objective 2

Classified 84% of the

sample correctly (65% CG

and 96% ADHD group)

Classified 77% of the

sample correctly (83,3%

CG and 71% RLD group)

Objective

Analyze if the explanatory power of different variables (CI, age,

gender, number and type of reading errors, omissions, commissions

...) changes depending on the type of difficulty analyzed.

Method

Participants: a total of 133 student were divided into four groups:

Instruments

34

2241

35

Control RD ADHD ADHD+RD

WISC-IV- (Wechsler, 2005)

EDAH (Farré y Narbona, 1998)

STUDY 2: NAMING SPEED AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

WITH READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

ResultsGroups Objects Colours Numbers Letters

R2 F R2 F R2 F R2 F

Control

Step 1 .834 10.096*** .700 4.534* .511 6.951** .527 6.905**

Step 2 .914 3.693* .755 3.212* .714 4.674* .784 3.461*

Step 3 .936 2.792 .823 1.607 .728 2.819 .825 2.701

RD

Step 1 .554 5.789*** .494 4.560* .437 3.618* .565 6.055**

Step 2 .709 3.485* .798 10.581*** .878 10.225*** .855* 8.394*

Step 3 .772 2.367 .826 9.073** .880 5.117* .954 14.365***

ADHD

Step 1 .505 5.777*** .373 3.373* .437 4.392- .584 7.940**

Step 2 .751 5.610** .672 3.810* .691 4.174* .749 5.538**

Step 3 .825 4.698** .781 3.563* .711 2.459 .856 5.922*

ADHD+RD

Step 1 .367 5.984** .386 6.508** .304 4.517** .385 6.479**

Step 2 .458 3.256** .509 4.000** .387 2.437* .540 4.532*

Step 3 .547 2.902* .556 3.00* .391 1.539 .541 2.833*

* p < .05, **< .01; ***< .005

STUDY 2: NAMING SPEED AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

WITH READING DISABILITIES AND ADHD

As previous researches confirmed, students with reading

disabilities and ADHD obtained lower scores in RAN/RAS test

than the CG.

RAN/RAS presented better discrimination between groups in

early ages, when participants aged form 5 to 9.

The explanatory power of attentional and reading variables

changes considerably depends on the diagnostic group

analised.

Reading errors present a larger explanatory power when studentspresented a reading difficulty.

TOVA variables only is considered relevant indexes when studentspresented attentional problems.

CONCLUSIONS

are

ORGANIZED OF KNOWLEDGE

THE HYPERTEXTS

have been implemented in students

STUDY 1 (3-6 years old)that have beed adapted to

EARLY YEARS

STUDY 2(6-8 years old)

Cueli, M., Rodríguez, C., Álvarez, A.I., Areces, D., & González-Castro, P. (In

press). Effectiveness of the computerized tool EPI.com to enhance

comprehension and expression in students aged 3 to 6. Journal of

Psychodidactics

AUTHORS??? (2017). Strategy EPI.com Primary Education first

grades. In review

INTERVENTION

Adapted hypertext to early years: EPI.com

Aim The hypertext is a network of processes that foster understanding and expression. It

allows the training of learning strategies

The application at early ages, before the subject read and write, stimulates the three

types of processing: lexical, semantic and syntactic and enhances the read and the

write.

¿How? 3 networks

3 representations

Forms Paper

Computer

La oveja

followed as method

INSTRUMENTSPARTICIPANTS DATA ANALYSIS

– 155 children, aged 3-6 (M = 4.185, SD = 0.824), 80 girls and 75 boys.

– Two groups: Experimental Group (n = 93; follows the EPI.com intervention) and Control Group (n = 62; follows traditional methodology).

– The sample was classified in three groups: Group 1 (65 students; 3 years), Group 2 (55 students; 4 years), Group 3 (35 students; 5 years).

– No statistically relevant differences according to age F(1, 153) = 0.548, p = .460, p

2 = .004; IQ F(1, 153) = 0.074, p = .786, p2 = .000 and sex χ2(1) = 0.161,

p = .688.

STUDY 1INTERVENTION

followed as method

STUDY 1

INSTRUMENTSPARTICIPANTS DATA ANALYSIS

– The PEABODY picture vocabulary test (Dunn, Dunn, & Arribas 2010)

– The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic abilities ITPA (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1986)• 11 variables: auditory comprehension, visual comprehension, auditory association, visual

association, verbal expression, motor expression, grammatical integration, visual integration, auditory integration, sequential auditory memory and sequential visual-motor memory.

– Intervention tool: EPI.com• Three times a week for three months, with 45-minute sessions during which the

intervention took place in presence of the class tutor.

INTERVENTION

Table 1

Means and standard deviations for the pre-test and post-test variables in the PEABODY test and ITPA Pre-test Post-test

EG

(n = 93)

CG

(n = 62)

EG

(n = 93)

CG

(n = 62)

M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) F

(1, 153) p

2

Peabody 41.78(19.07) 40.59(17.68) 45.72(20.57) 39.77(17.59) 3.479 0.02

Auditory Comprehension 8.48(7.26) 8.37(849) 11.64(10.04) 8.08(8.49) 5.286* 0.03

Visual Comprehension 7.83(3.93) 7.35(4.27) 10.33(4.86) 6.88 (4.20) 20.75*** 0.11

Visual Memory 2.05(2.32) 1.93(2.30) 3.54(3.18) 1.87 (2.41) 12.45*** 0.07

Auditory Association 7.81(4.44) 7.38(5.07) 10.48(5.33) 6.77(4.77) 19.52*** 0.11

Auditory Memory 3.95(1.96) 3.77(2.19) 5.50(3.140) 3.62(2.15) 16.84*** 0.09

Visual Association 5.67(4.96) 5.30(5.40) 9.24(6.754) 4.95(5.18) 17.98*** 0.10

Visual Integration 13.47(4.73) 12.87(5.47) 17.66(7.19) 12.48(5.43) 23.28*** 0.13

Verbal Expression 15.51(8.58) 14.58(9.18) 22.21(11.38) 13.83(8.86) 23.88*** 0.13

Grammatical Integration 7.17(4.16) 6.83(4.59) 12.16(5.69) 6.06(4.60) 49.44*** 0.24

Motor Expression 11.77(5.19) 11.06(5.80) 13.79(5.50) 10.91(5.95) 9.50** 0.05

Auditory Integration 6.30(4.39) 5.61(4.69) 8.01(5.21) 5.83(4.70) 6.96** 0.04

Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation EG = Experimental Group, CG = Control Group

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

INTERVENTION

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pretest Postest

Visual integration

3

4

5

0

10

20

30

40

Pretest Postest

Verbal expression

3

4

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Pretest Postest

Gramatical expression

3

4

5

02468

101214

Pretest Postest

3 años

Visualintegration

Verbalexpression

Gramaticalexpression

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

4 años

Visualintegration

Verbalexpression

Gramaticalexpression

0

10

20

30

40

5 años

Visualintegration

Verbalexpression

Gramaticalexpression

followed as method

STUDY 2

INSTRUMENTSPARTICIPANTS DATA ANALYSIS

– 62 children, aged 6-7 (M = 6.887, SD = 0.564), 30 girls and 32 boys.

– Two groups: Experimental Group (n = 38; follows the EPI.com intervention) and Control Group (n = 24; follows traditional methodology).

– The sample was classified in two groups in function of the grade: Group 1 (30 students; first grade), Group 2 (32 students; second grade).

– No statistically relevant differences according to age F(1, 60) = 0.50, p = .823, p

2 = .001; F(1, 60) = 0.626, p = .432, p2 = .010; and sex χ2(1) = 0.065, p =

.799.

Tabla 1

Medias, desviaciones típicas para las variables prestest y postest del Peabody e ITPA y

diferencias en el postest entre el GE y el GC

Pretest Postest

GE

(n = 38)

GC

(n = 24)

GE

(n = 38)

GC

(n = 24)

M(DT) M(DT) M(DT) M(DT) F

(1, 60)

p2

Peabody 82.26(17.99) 78.91(18.37) 87.60(20.90) 77.45(19.01)

Auditory Comprehension 32.39(11.95) 31.04(12.76) 35.97(12.55) 30.12(12.90) 3.12 0.05

Visual Comprehension 13.52(3.81) 12.87(5.39) 15.73(4.55) 12.62 (5.28) 6.06* 0.09

Visual Memory 8.15(3.62) 7.58(4.05) 9.71(3.95) 7.29 (4.26) 5.18* 0.07

Auditory Association 17.60(6.88) 16.95(6.82) 20.36(7.30) 16.50(8.54) 3.61 0.05

Auditory Memory 7.78(2.50) 7.66(3.54) 9.76(3.72) 7.50(3.34) 5.86* 0.08

Visual Association 16.94(5.93) 17.00(7.25) 21.92(6.98) 16.54(7.71) 8.31** 0.12

Visual Integration 24.00(5.25) 24.00(7.34) 29.05(6.99) 23.87(7.43) 7.68** 0.11

Verbal Expression 32.60(8.97) 33.75(12.41) 44.73(12.69) 31.95(12.82) 14.79

***

0.19

Grammatical Integration 16.52(5.88) 15.95(6.10) 22.42(5.66) 14.95(6.57) 22.54

***

0.27

Motor Expression 21.02(4.54) 20.45(5.69) 22.97(5.49) 20.62(5.45) 2.69 0.04

Auditory Integration 13.92(5.81) 13.70(5.60) 15.94(6.19) 13.50(6.06) 2.33 0.03

Nota. M = Media, DT = Desviación Típica, GE = Grupo Experimental, GC = Grupo Control.

* p<.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

PRE POST

First grade

Visual integration

Verbal expression

Gramaticalexpression

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PRE POST

Second grade

Visual integration

Verbal expression

Gramaticalexpression

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pretest Postest

Visual integration

First grade

Second grade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pretest Postest

Verbal expression

First grade

Second grade

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pretest Postest

Gramatical expression

First grade

Second grade

It works in other languages?

Does he/she understand oral messages according with

her/his age?

Does he/she understand visual histories?

Can he/she reproduce visual stimuli once memorized?

Can he/she complete unfinished sentences?

Can he/she reproduce even larger series of numbers?

Can he/she associate iconic-symbolic representations

associated each other?

Can he/she identify iconic-symbolic representations?

Can he/she say different words associated to once given

word?

Can he/she unfinished sentences with given words?

Can he/she reproduce with gestures given words (iconic-

simbolic representation?

Can he/she identify unfinished oral words?

EBI ENGLISH TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

GE PRE

GE POST

-0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

GE PRE

GE POST

ITPA EBI

Conclussions

In the two studies:

EPI.com proves to be effective in interventions on those aspects, hence the

importance of implementing interventions at early ages which lay the

foundation for future learning.

Besides, although the improvement in verbal aspects is not significant, the

means observed show higher scores in the EG than in the CG.

The profile by age and grade showed:

More positive results among the youngest students.

In the two studies,….

The effect sizes were systematically larger in three variables: visual

integration, verbal expression and grammatical integration.

These results point at a more positive evolution in semantic processing

(variables such as visual comprehension) and also in syntactic processing

(visual, grammatical… integration).

ThanksCelestino Rodríguez Pérez

University of Oviedo

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Celestino_Rodriguez

rodriguezcelestino@uniovi.es

COST is supported by the EU Framework

Programe Horizon 2020