Screening for dyslexia, dyspraxia and visual stress in HE

1. Screening for dyslexia, dyspraxia and visual stress in HE S.A. Nichols, J.S. McLeod, J.M. Brown, L.J. Smith, F. Summerfield, R.L. Holder * Centre for Inclusive Learning Support, University of Worcester * University of Birmingham

2. Original Aims • To analyse the effectiveness of current screening practice at UW and compare it with a computerised method, LADS (Lucid Adult Screening Test): • Tutor method consists of selected subtests from: • Bangor Dyslexia Test (BDTA) (Miles 1983); and • Dyslexia Adult Screening Test (DASTA) (Fawcett and Nicolson 1998)

3. Definitions • Dyslexia “is evident when accurate or fluent word reading and/or spelling develops very incompletely or with great difficulty’ (Singleton, 1999, p.18) • Dyspraxia is regarded as an impairment or immaturity of the organisation of movement. Associated with this may be problems of language, perception and thought (Dyspraxia Foundation, 2007)

4. Definitions • Visual stress is not currently defined as a specific learning difficulty. In identifying stress we follow the definition by Kriss and Evans (2005, p.1) of a syndrome characterised by ‘symptoms of visual stress and visual perception disorders that are alleviated by using individually prescribed colour filters.’

5. The screening and assessment process

6. Model • As screeners we are looking for signs of the same difficulties used by assessors to identify SpLD. • We do not spend much time exploring the student’s history of difficulty, nor do we look at differentials between underlying ability and achievement. So we are looking for problems in the following:

7. Difficulties investigated • Working memory • Phonological processing • Visual processing • Sequencing and orientation • Hand-eye coordination • Spelling • Reading • Writing Plus possible genetic factors

8. RecruitmentProcess

9. Screening results

10. Projectprocess

11. Co-morbidity of dyslexia, dyspraxia and visual stress from the 60 assessments used. Assessed negative = 15

12. Additional Aims • How well does our tutor screening tool identify SpLD? • Can the tool, or the process with which it is used, be improved?

13. Analysis • To assess the accuracy of our battery for identifying SpLDs, we: • calculated sensitivity and specificity for various combinations of subtests • calculated the statistical significance of correlations between each subtest and each condition • used logistic stepwise regression analysis to determine the most effective combination of tests

14. Dyslexia

15. Dyspraxia

16. Visual Stress

17. Any SpLD

20. Sum of stepwise regression analyses • Left/right confusions • Polysyllables • Subtraction • b/d confusions • One minute reading • Phonemic segmentation • Digit span • Nonsense reading • One minute writing

21. What next? • A shortened battery of screening tests plus test for visual stress • A computerised pre-screening test • An analysis of barriers to referral • Further promotion of the Disability and Dyslexia Service.

22. One minute reading for a student aged 22 -24 years • 97 – 126 words = no risk • 86 – 96 words = low risk • 71 – 85 words = moderate risk • 70 or less words = high risk

23. One minute writing for a student aged 22 – 24 years • 32 -39 words = no risk • 30 -31 = low risk • 21 -29 = moderate risk • 20 or less = high risk

25. Questions?