MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2289256930 · doi:10.14288/1.0054478

A validity study of the dyslexia determination test (Griffin & Walton,1981)

2010· article· en· W2289256930 on OpenAlexaffabout
William A. R. Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriffinTest (biology)PsychologyHistoryGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyslexia has always been diagnosed by exclusion after an extensive battery of tests has eliminated all etiology. The Dyslexia Determination Test (D.D.T.) is an attempt to provide a direct diagnosis of dyslexia and to categorize the disability into various subgroups which may lead to more prescriptive remediation. The. purpose of this investigation was to study the validity of the D.D.T. by administering it to two distinct groups of readers (dyslexic and normal) to ascertain whether the test could discriminate between the two groups and further to examine the efficacy of the test's division of subjects into types of dyslexia as defined by the authors of the D.D.T. The sample taken from grades four to seven pupils in four Burnaby Schools, was comprised of two groups: a Control Group defined as average readers and an Experimental Group defined as at least two years below grade placement in reading with no known etiology. Groups were identified, based upon Canadian Tests of Basic Skills Vocabulary and Comprehension scores. Initial screening was done by conferencing with administrators, counsellors and teachers. Further screening was done with the Slosson Intelligence Test. A final sample of 14 Control and 14 Experimental subjects was identified. All were administered the D.D.T. by examiners who were not aware that the subjects comprised two groups. Results of the D. D. T. were analyzed by a discriminant analysis procedure. Scoring and analysis were also done by the examiners following the Manual procedures and guidelines. The discriminant analysis demonstrated that the D.D.T. was able to differentiate between the groups to a statistically significant level. Manual scoring and analysis resulted in few subjects being identified as dyslexic with no clear indicators of the types of dyslexia defined by the authors. One type of dyslexia was not indicated in any subject. Limitations of the study and the Test were noted and discussed. Suggestions were made for further research and for improvements to the Test, procedures and the Manuai.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicReading and Literacy Development→French-language works237,207→