Dyslexia (SpLD) : Recent Research 72 In the first of the studies summarised, there is a return to the issue of discrepancy approaches,

with the authors in question arguing for the lack of diagnostic validity either of the original RQ-IQ discrepancy or of the regression-based discrepancy where IQ is replaced by achievement level in some other scholastic domain. There follows a reference to evidence indicating that anomalous neurological activation patterns may be observed among preschool children who go on to present with dyslexic-type disabilities. The third study is a meta-analysis of the (limited) evidence relating to the legitimacy and usefulness of extra time in formal tests and examinations for students identified with learning difficulties concluding that this is an area where empirical evidence and practice have not gone hand in hand. M.J.Connor April 2012

Dyslexia (SpLD) : Recent Research 72 Discrepancy Identification of (Specific ) Learning Difficulty Cahan et al (2012) introduce their work by describing how the discrepancy approach to identifying leaning difficulty (dyslexia ) is still in use, despite the criticism it has attracted since its first formulation. These criticisms have commonly highlighted two issues the failure to recognise the less than complete correlation between the two variables involved, and the observable pattern of regression to the mean . Reference is made to the study of Rutter and Yule (1975) who explored the existing practice of examining the degree of discrepancy between reading age and mental age ( or IQ ) as a marker of the presence and severity of dyslexia. They argued that, when there is a less than perfect correlation between the measures, the children who are well above average in one will tend to be less advanced in the other ; and those well below average in one are likely to achieve higher scores in the other. Given regression effects, the average IQ scores of very poor readers at any age will almost certainly be higher than their reading scores and, in some cases, the difference will be large. Such children may well be regarded as markedly underachieving or as having a specific reading disability ; and the net effect would be to over-identity learning disability among children with relatively high IQ scores and to under-identify learning disability among children with relatively low IQ scores. Rutter and Yule proposed a modification of the discrepancy definition whereby a childs actual reading performance is paired with the predicted reading score. A child would be described as having a specific difficulty ( rather than a global learning difficulty ) if there is a discrepancy between actual reading and predicted reading on the basis of the score observed in some other aspect of scholastic achievement, and if this discrepancy meets some pre-determined extent ( such as -2 standard deviations ). The shift is from using a measure of the childs innate intellectual capacity ( allegedly indicating the maximal level of achievement of which (s)he is capable ) to using some other predictor observed achievement in some other domain. Rutter and Yule justify this shift by arguing that an IQ test measures a childs performance in a range of tasks, so that the IQ scores could be regarded as much a measure of achievement as a reading or a maths test. The IQ does not explain the reading level and one might just as well predict an IQ score on the basis of reading performance. In any cases, the IQ does not measure raw, innate ability.

On the other hand, the IQ scores can be of some use in highlighting those children who appear to be at risk ( i.e. those whose achievement is below the expectation based upon chronological age and IQ ) even if this approach does not accurately highlight all the children at risk. So, the argument is that any discrepancy approach should involve two reading scores ( the actual and the predicted ) rather than measures of two quite different aspects of achievement. The predicted score takes on a criterion-like status and serves to highlight deviations from expectation of an observed score. In response to this argument, Cahan et al ask why achievement in some other area should be attributed the status of predictor ; and why a large and negative deviation from the established expectation should be seen as an anomaly which needs explanation. They have not found any answer to these questions despite the continued use of regression-based discrepancy definitions of dyslexia, and the greater difficulty in demonstrating its validity compared to the original achievement IQ discrepancy which it was intended to replace and did at least offer an intuitive logic. Further, the literature in this domain has failed to support discrepancy definitions ; and a common view ( eg Stanovich 2005 ) has developed to the effect that there is no meaningful discrepancy-based distinction between poor readers with a specific disability and their peers who experience a more general learning disability. No evidence has been found for differences between the groups in terms of processing skills, neuro-anatomical correlates, or of response to intervention. Accordingly, as an alternative to discrepancy-based approaches, there has emerged an alternative procedure for identification and monitoring of (specific) difficulties based upon observed response to intervention. Cahan et al continue by further examining the regression-based discrepancy approach in terms of predictive validity and predictor identity. Predictive validity is critical in seeking to justify the use of any particular predictor the significance of the level of achievement in a chosen domain (X) for determining the expected achievement in reading (Y). It is also important in terms of the proportion of candidates for tests and examinations who would be classified as having (specific) learning difficulty. The better the predictor, the fewer but more meaningful would be the classifications. The effect of predictor identity ( be it intelligence or level of performance in mathematics or any other scholastic sphere ) is another source of questions and concerns. There is no obvious or natural predictor, and the choice of predictor remains pragmatic and arbitrary but the assumption is that the choice will not have an impact upon the outcome of the identification process.

Cahan et al question this assumption and suggest that the nature of the predictor will influence the number of individuals defined as having (specific ) learning difficulty ; and the use of different predictors will give rise to different groups of test/examination candidates warranting concessions. The extent of similarity or dissimilarity between groups will be a function of the correlation between predictors ( with the likelihood of within-individual crosspredictor variability in the identification of need ). In addition, the regression-based discrepancy approach requires some arbitrary decision concerning what constitutes low reading achievement and where the cut-off point should be for defining a learning disability. In sum, the authors refer to 3 major problems with the regression-based discrepancy definition of specific learning difficulty. The first is a conceptual issue concerning the legitimacy of a criterion-like status assigned to the prediction of achievement in one domain ( reading - X ) on the basis of performance in another domain (Y). The other problems are statistical the dependence of the results of identification processes upon the predictive validity of Y ; and the dependence upon the nature of the ( arbitrarily-chosen ) predictor, with the probability of cross-predictor instability of the identification process reflected in differences in the composition of groups of students identified via the use of different predictors ( Y1, Y2, etc ). Just as the use of the IQ scores in identification may lead to the predominance of children with relatively high IQs in the category of specific reading difficulty, the use of any other predictor ( such as achievement in mathematics ) may well lead to a predominance in the identified group of children with good performance in that domain ( in this example, children with relatively high achievement in mathematics ). The conclusion offered, therefore, is that the regression-based definition is dubious both theoretically and statistically. Dyslexia and Anomalous Neural-Network Activation Research completed by Raschle et al (2012) has indicated that MRI brain scan patterns of preschool children can offer clues concerning an enhanced risk for dyslexia. The implication is that the anomalies observed are present before the start of learning to read and are not the outcome of some shifted developmental pattern as a result of learning failure. The possible value of such findings would mean that certain children could be monitored more closely and supportive action taken at an early stage and before the experience of frustrations and uncertainties before difficulties are formally recognised ( typically at around 8 years of age ).

In this research, 5 year old children ( N=36) underwent MRI scanning while dealing with questions concerning whether or not two words begin with the same sound. During these tests of phonological awareness, the children with a family history of dyslexia ( and, therefore, regarded as facing a greater risk for such difficulties themselves compared with other children ) were found to show reduced activation in certain brain areas. Children presenting with normal and high activity in these areas had better pre-reading skills ( such as awareness of rhyme, knowledge of letters names and sounds, and sound matching ). The authors suggested that children predisposed to dyslexia may be identified by this kind of early (in)activation pattern. A further implication was for support for the validity of the concept of developmental dyslexia, and for emerging insight into the neurobiological underpinning of this disorder. Specifically, dyslexia and dyslexia risk appears to be associated with a disruption of posterior left-hemispheric networks during phonological tasks and no compensatory activation is evident in other brain areas. The areas of reduced activation included the bilateral occipito-temporal and left temporo-parietal regions and this was said to correspond with the hypoactivity in left hemispheric posterior brain regions among older children and adults with a formal identification of dyslexia. The authors argued that differences in neural functioning during phonological demands are not simply the result of reading failure, but may be observed before the process of reading acquisition begins. Replication studies were seen as justified in order to determine whether these differences may be regarded as neural pre-markers for the early identification of children at risk for dyslexia. Concessions in Examinations ( Additional Time ) The study by Gregg and Nelson (2012) was set in the USA but it seems likely that the issues raised will be of relevance to at least some extent for the situation in this country. These authors refer to high-stake tests and examinations, and the disadvantages likely to be experienced by students with a learning difficulty. The need is to enable the students to demonstrate skills or knowledge in a given domain, without their being masked behind literacy or other learning difficulties ; and there may be concern about the equity and value of different types of concessions. They note that the most common form of concession for students with such difficulties is extended time to complete the test/examination. In the USA over recent years, there have been ever-increasing numbers of requests to examination boards for the granting of additional time.

Meanwhile, it is stressed that the concessions are intended to compensate for the effect of the learning difficulty, but not to go beyond that and confer some actual advantage for the individuals concerned over their fellow-examinees. Reference is made to the Interaction view which argues that any accommodation should only benefit the outcomes for students who have a real need, and should not be available to a student who has no such need. The Differential Boost view holds that concessions should improve the performance of a student with a learning difficulty to a significantly greater extent than it improves the performance of students with no difficulty. A practical problem in determining the effectiveness of concessions is that the individuals concerned are a widely heterogeneous group whose needs cover a range of types and severities, and whose educational backgrounds are diverse. Nelson and Gregg embarked upon a meta-analysis in order to evaluate the effectiveness of extended time for adolescents coming towards the latter stages of high schooling and looking towards the transition. The questions included Are test scores from accommodated ( i.e. with extra time ) and standard examination procedures comparable for students with a learning difficulty and their normally-achieving peers ? Does the test/examination content affect the test performance of students with and without a learning difficulty ? Does the type of test/examination ( entrance examination or diagnostic assessment ) affect performance ? The criteria for inclusion of studies in the analysis were that the participants should be in the 9th grade or higher ( in their 15th year or older ) ; the target group must have received a formal identification as learning disabled ; sample sizes of target and control groups to be at least 10 ; the types of skill examined to be limited to reading, or written expression, or mathematics ; the extended time to be the only concession available ; and the study to have appeared in a refereed publication. While 132 articles were identified from a range of data-bases as relating to this general theme, only 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. In introducing their (limited) findings, Gregg and Nelson restated the purpose of concessions as a means of adjusting examination conditions and to equalise the opportunity for individuals to demonstrate knowledge ie to counter the way in which the examination structure may discriminate against some candidates. Time allowed to complete an examination is one likely discriminator ; and reference is made to Lu and Sireci (2007) who argued that research is urgently needed to explore the validity issues of required speed in examinations ( with the suspicion that time limits are set largely for administrative convenience ).

As a result of the meta-analysis, the authors report that the available research does not address the issues surrounding comparability of performance with and without the time concessions. There is not just a very small number of studies, but the methodologies are restricted, and there is a failure to represent the diversity of the learning difficulties. They comment that the volume of litigation surrounding the matter of concessions ( in the form of additional time ) is considerably greater than the body of empirical evidence concerning the usefulness of such provision ! In particular, existing data are limited by the failure adequately to describe the needs of the participants ... and only 3 of the studies reported the criteria by which to define a learning disability. Most of the evidence concerns adolescents who are taking the standard college entrance examination and there is a major question concerning the generalisation of the findings to the range of abilities and disabilities represented in this transition group. The existing range of capacities and educational backgrounds covered in the research was described as restricted and insufficient to provide insight into the various subgroups within the learning disabled population. In any event, what was clear was that the normally-achieving students outperformed their learning disabled peers, and this pattern was consistent across all types of tests/examinations and all comparisons even when the latter groups are offered the additional time. This finding can be taken to refute any suggestion that the provision of additional time creates an unfair advantage. Moreover, further analysis indicated that extended time has different effects according to the severity of achievement deficits. Neither the type of test nor the academic skill area assessed could explain the heterogeneity of outcomes and a more likely explanation was thought to lie in the heterogeneity of the participants. ( The small number of studies will also have had an inhibiting effect upon the power to detect significant differences.) The authors conclude by citing the frequent use of a time concession and the assumption that extended time will be effective for all candidates with a learning disability. There has been some concern lest the concessions provide an unfair advantage. The findings here offer little support for either view. What stood out from the analysis was that transitioning students with a learning difficulty continued to under-perform compared with peers whether or not they were given extra time in a test or examination. Their scores may be improved, but the disadvantage is not truly compensated. The implication is for early identification of disadvantages and modified or extended educational provision thus to limit under-achievement and not simply to raise anxieties or complaints about inadequate accommodation

when it comes to examinations at a relatively late stage in educational careers. Meanwhile, the lack or narrowness of research data creates difficulties for evaluating the usefulness of the time concession. Future research needs to compare target and control groups on both standard and accommodated examination procedures ; to provide detailed information about the participants learning needs ; and to explore the impact of concessions upon the validity of scores. General Implications It was a little like a blast from the past to read the article returning to the theme of identifying specific difficulties and the use of discrepancy definitions. The issue of the precise nature of dyslexia and the means of valid identification ( including determining how and by what criteria and cut-off points to differentiate children with specific learning difficulty from children with more general learning difficulty ) has long been challenging with early questions raised over whether or not dyslexia existed or should be regarded as a valid diagnostic category. Currently, dyslexia has come to be seen as a very wide classification, and no longer as some unitary entity. Children may experience difficulties as a result of various aetiological influences and pathways ; and it is acknowledged that children with limited overall abilities ( however assessed ) can still experience dyslexic-type problems with the implication that many such children are likely to have been under-identified and disadvantaged in the past ( and possibly still are ). On the other hand, when it comes to the initial identification of children who may have (specific) difficulties, there may well be clues available from the profile of strengths and weaknesses to determine which children should have closer monitoring and, perhaps, access to additional and alternative strategies. The response to the greater attention and to the individual support would be a telling feature in the identification process but the need is to avoid an overnarrow set of pointers or criteria by which to decide which children warrant this extra support in the first place. With regard to the study on brain activation patterns by which to identify young children at risk for dyslexia, one might worry that there is a return to the view that dyslexia is a very specific and unitary condition, to be differentiated from all other causes of reading and allied skill deficits. However, one might reiterate the growing suggestion that the causes and influences related to dyslexia are, indeed, many and various, but that a commonly identified feature of dyslexia is a weakness in phonological knowledge and manipulative skills.

In other words, within the range of forms and aetiologies of dyslexia, children with phonological deficits may be seen a significant group perhaps even a core group and this view is supported by the current research by providing some initial evidence for the neurological basis for the deficits. One might say that there is a relatively common dyslexia theme, but also many variations ( more Charles Ives than Elgar ). In respect of the meta-analysis of findings on examination concessions, one needs to stress that this was a USA study and that the focus upon the examination type/content was limited. The extent to which this analysis has relevance to the arrangements in this country ( for GCSE examinations, for example ) is not clear. However, one might underline the point that the time concessions did not appear fully to address the disadvantage. In the experience of the present writer - MJC - there is some significance in the research described because of the perception that the emphasis in this country in respect of concessions has been upon additional time, with some lack of clarity over which types of disability would best be compensated by such a concession, but a suspicion that this would not be of much value for a sizeable proportion of the candidates for whom it is requested. One might also wonder if there is some bias in which students are put forward in the first place as meriting the concession. There seems to be an assumption that a range of types of need would be served equally well by additional time but a common finding ( according to reports of secondary school staff ) is that students typically do not use this time ( possibly because it is not actually of much value, or because many of the candidates find it hard to struggle on with an examination if they know that the majority of their peers have escaped ). There does seem to be a case for exploring this whole issue, for expanding the types of concession available, and for ensuring that there is a fairness in matching provision to individual need without simply changing the direction of unevenness of the playing field. * M.J.Connor April 2012 * * * *

REFERENCES

Cahan S., Fono D., and Nirel R. 2012 The regression-based discrepancy definition of learning disability : a critical appraisal. Journal of Learning Disabilities 45(2) 170-178 Gregg N. and Nelson J. 2012 Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of extra time as a test accommodation for transitioning adolescents with learning disabilities : more questions than answers. Journal of Learning Disabilities 45(2) 128-138 Lu Y. and Sireci S. 2007 Validity issues in test speededness. Educational Measurement : Issues and Practices 6 29-37 Rutter M. and Yule W. 1975 The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 16 181-197 Raschle N., Zuk J., and Gaab N. 2012 Functional characteristics of developmental dyslexia in left hemispheric posterior brain regions predate reading onset. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published on-line January 2012. DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1107721109/-/DCSupplemental Stanovich K. 2005 The future of a mistake : will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience ? Learning Disability Quarterly 28 103-106

10