Validation and Reliability of the Dyslexia Adult Checklist in Screening for Dyslexia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyslexia is a language-based neurobiological and developmental learning disability marked by inaccurate and disfluent word recognition, poor decoding, and difficulty spelling. Individuals can be diagnosed with and experience symptoms of dyslexia throughout their lifespan. Screening tools such as the Dyslexia Adult Checklist allow individuals to self-evaluate common risk factors of dyslexia prior to or in lieu of obtaining costly and timely psychoeducational assessments. Although widely available online, the Dyslexia Adult Checklist has yet to be validated. The purpose of this study was to validate this Checklist in a sample of adults with and without dyslexia using both univariate and multivariate statistical approaches. We hypothesised that the Dyslexia Adult Checklist would accurately distinguish between individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of dyslexia (n = 200) and a control group (n = 200), as measured by total scores on the screening tool. Results from our sample found the Dyslexia Adult Checklist to be valid (Cronbach's α = 0.86), and reliable (sensitivity = 76%-91.5%, specificity = 80%-88%). Compared to the originally proposed cut-off score of 45, given the higher sensitivity rate and negative predictive value, we recommend researchers and clinicians use a cut-off score of 40 to indicate possible mild to severe symptoms of dyslexia when using the Dyslexia Adult Checklist.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it