1 / 28

First-Line Screener for Dyscalculia

First-Line Screener for Dyscalculia. Update on trials Autumn 2006. Background. Cognitive Model. Conceptual understanding of number, place value Comparative relative size Verbal Symbolic Visual-Spatial. Operational. Conceptual conception of correct operation to

paul
Download Presentation

First-Line Screener for Dyscalculia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. First-Line Screener for Dyscalculia Update on trials Autumn 2006

  2. Background

  3. Cognitive Model • Conceptual • understanding of number, place value • Comparative • relative size • Verbal • Symbolic • Visual-Spatial

  4. Operational • Conceptual • conception of correct operation to • achieve required outcome • reverse a process • Inferential • given an operational definition • make comparative inferences about an outcome, without realising the outcome • Infer an operational relationship

  5. Abstract Symbolic • Spatial-Temporal • Understanding • Visual-Spatial diagrams • Time • Graphical • Reading and Interpreting • Graphs • Tables

  6. Cognitive Model for Dyscalculia inferential operational abstract conceptual symbolic number conceptual symbolic tables number graphical comparative verbal graphs visual-spatial Direction Spatial- Temporal Time

  7. Phase 1 Developing the Screening Tool • Development of items • Development of the model • Available in both paper and electronic versions

  8. Phase 2: Initial Trials • Involved 19 participants • Organised into three groups Dyscalculic Dyslexic Control • Showed no difference between paper and electronic versions • Showed good discrimination

  9. Phase 3: Further Trials • Involved 30 participants • Organised into three equal groupsDyscalculic Dyslexic Control • Showed good discrimination

  10. 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 number Graph: percentage scores on the subtest O dyscalculic O dyslexic O control percent

  11. Phase 4: Further Trials • 137 students • Large groups/small groups/individuals • 16 out of 137 identified “at risk” • 8% prevalence • Geary (2004) 5 - 8% • Desoete et al (2004) 3 - 8% • Butterworth (1999) 4 - 6% • Not post-16

  12. Phase 5: Autumn 2006

  13. Aims of the Trials • Two distinct aims • to collect data on the general population • to collect data about individuals already identified as dyscalculic by EP/Assessor.

  14. “Large-Scale” Trials • Paper-based trials • Whole classes of students (FE and HE) • Paper-based and electronic-based versions shown to be identical in nature • This data establishes the required percentiles for the population

  15. “Small-Scale” Trials • Dyscalculic students • Extended to “mathematical difficulties” • However other students involved (neurodiverse) • Learning support tutors completed a sheet detailing the SpLD identified • “Small-Scale” conducted one-to-one • Electronic-based

  16. Results

  17. “Large-Scale” Trials • 356 students in H.E. (80 in FE) • Percentiles calculated • 8th percentile corresponded to a score of 84% • 2nd percentile to a score of 70% on the screener • “low” and “very low” thresholds, “at risk of dyscalculia” • “very low” still gives a score unlikely to further reduce confidence • history of very low mathematical self-esteem

  18. “Small-Scale” Trials • Involved 89 students • 46 in H.E. • 43 in F.E. • H.E. and F.E. data treated separately

  19. HE

  20. FE

  21. Dyspraxia

  22. Profiles

  23. Threshold Total Score Comparative Symbolic Comparative Verbal Comparative Visual-Spatial Conceptual Graphical Operational Conceptual Operational Relational Spatial Directional Spatial Temporal Symbolic Abstraction Tabular Time Taken: 25 Minutes Profiler

  24. A typical dyscalculia profile?

  25. 2 Dyscalculic Profiles • Symbolic number comparison • Inferential operations • Graph • Time

  26. Thank you to the 23 institutions of HE and FE

More Related