Screening for Learning Difficulty Using Teacher Ratings on the Colorado Learning Difficulties Questionnaire

Autor/inn/en	Koriakin, Taylor A.; McCurdy, Mark D.; Pritchard, Alison E.; Zabel, T. Andrew; Jacobson, Lisa A.
Titel	Screening for Learning Difficulty Using Teacher Ratings on the Colorado Learning Difficulties Questionnaire
Quelle	In: Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24 (2019) 1, S.55-63 (9 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1046-6819
Schlagwörter	Learning Problems; Teacher Attitudes; Screening Tests; Reading Skills; Mathematics Skills; Reading Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Predictor Variables; Parent Attitudes; Correlation; At Risk Students; Disability Identification; Elementary School Students; Elementary School Teachers; Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Lernproblem; Lehrerverhalten; Screening-Verfahren; Reading skill; Lesefertigkeit; Mathmatics achievement; Mathematics ability; Mathematische Kompetenz; Leseleistung; Mathmatics sikills; Mathematical ability; Prädiktor; Elternverhalten; Korrelation; Elementary school; Teacher; Teachers; Grundschule; Volksschule; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; WIAT; Eignungsprüfung; Eignungstest
Abstract	The present study examined clinical utility of teacher ratings on the Colorado Learning Difficulties Questionnaire (CLDQ) learning difficulties screening within a referred, school-aged sample (N=519, 5-18 years). Of this sample, 419 youth had CLDQ reading scale scores from a reading or general education teacher, and 338 had CLDQ math scale ratings from a math or general education teacher. Sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were examined for specific reading and math difficulties (achievement SS<85). Cut-scores were identified to maximize sensitivity (reading: 60-91%; math: 85-89%), but specificity was low (reading: 60-64%, math: 47-48%); AUCs ranged from 0.70-0.87 for reading and 0.75-0.77 for math. Discrimination was comparable in an elementary subsample. Conditional probabilities suggested CLDQ ratings more accurately predicted children "without" learning difficulties (i.e., true negatives) than "with" learning difficulties. Parent and teacher ratings were well correlated (r =0.71), but addition of teacher ratings improved classification accuracy and model fit (p <0.001) across domains. Furthermore, CLDQ teacher ratings were helpful in reducing false positives based upon parent ratings alone. Findings suggest teacher ratings via CLDQ can be used to screen children at risk for learning difficulties, with teacher ratings showing added value over and above parent ratings. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Sagamore-Venture. 1807 North Federal Drive, Urbana, IL 61801. Tel: 800-327-5557; Tel: 217-359-5940; Fax: 217-359-5975. Web site: https://www.sagamorepub.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01