Dyslexia is a specific learning disorder with a neurobiological basis that affects a significant percentage of students. However, there are no known validated instruments that contribute to the early identification of this problem, which makes educational intervention difficult. The purpose of this work has been to develop and validate a scale of risk indicators for dyslexia at the beginning of the Primary Education stage (EIRD-EP) in order to favor the detection of this learning problem in the first moments in the that manifests There was the participation of 458 Primary Education teachers from different public and concerted educational centers. The validity of the questionnaire was carried out through content validity together with an exploratory factorial analysis with half of the sample that indicated a four-factor structure, later a confirmatory factorial analysis was carried out with the other half of the sample that demonstrated a four-factor structure. proper model fit. The results show that the instrument can be used by education professionals to identify students who are at risk of presenting dyslexia.
Article Details
How to Cite
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., & Pozo-Rico, T. (2022). Design and validation of a scale for the identification of dyslexia at the beginning of Primary Education. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2973
Gutiérrez-Fresneda and Pozo-Rico: Design and validation of a scale for the identification of dyslexia at the beginning
of Primary Education
Introduction
Dyslexia is the most common school problem in the child population and one of the
main factors linked to school failure and dropout. In fact, one in four cases of academic
failure is caused by this difficulty, of which 67% of students with this problem are
between eight and eleven years old, and 18% are between 12 and 16 years old (; ).
Dyslexia is a learning disorder that is first manifested in the development of oral
language and in access to the lexicon in written language from early educational levels,
especially when the consolidation of the reading-writing process occurs, which occurs
during the first year of Primary Education. It can be caused by a combination of deficits
in phonological, auditory, and/or visual processing. Similarly, it is usually accompanied
by problems related to poor functioning of working memory, deficiencies in syntactic
knowledge, problems in processing speed and alterations in prosodic awareness (; ).
Dyslexia symptoms usually appear early, specifically when the process of acquiring
reading and writing begins, this being in the first years of Primary Education when
this learning problem can best be identified and it is the teachers who can effectively
detect the presence of certain difficulties that may be the trigger of this problem,
which is why training of this learning disorder is essential for teachers.
Curiously, it is noteworthy that although dyslexia is one of the main causes of learning
difficulties, there is little teacher training, especially in least experienced teachers,
regarding this learning disorder (), as is the case for students who are being trained as future teachers ().
Studies aimed at analysing the knowledge of teachers on this topic are characterized
by showing, on the one hand, that teachers, both those who are beginning their professional
career and students who are finishing their university studies in the Degrees in Teacher
of Early Childhood Education and Primary Education have a series of significant shortcomings
on the different linguistic constructs that intervene in dyslexia (phonology, phonetics,
syntax, morphology...) that are at the base of the process of teaching written language
and in the treatment of the difficulties of the students with this learning disorder
(; ;; ; ). On the other hand, when analysing the beliefs and conceptions that teachers have
about dyslexia, it becomes clear that their ideas are based more on false myths than
on the contributions of research in recent years. Some of these ideas refer to the
fact that dyslexia is the result of poor visual perception and not of a phonological
processing deficit; that letter or word inversions are the most important criteria
in identifying dyslexia; that the use of coloured glasses help in the treatment of
people with dyslexia; that dyslexia is not hereditary; or that children with this
learning difficulty will outgrow dyslexia over time (; ). It should be noted that the knowledge teachers have about dyslexia correlates with
teaching experience, treatment and intervention with students diagnosed with dyslexia
and with other learning difficulties, which has allowed them to acquire greater knowledge
about this learning problem (; ).
The interest in the diagnosis of dyslexia and specifically in the design of instruments
allowing for early detection of students with this disorder is a topic of great relevance
in the field of learning difficulties. In recent decades different tests have been
developed for this purpose, among the best known the Prolexia test, aimed at schoolchildren
between 4 and 6 years of age (), the Bangor dyslexia test, recognized for its usefulness for the detection of dyslexia
in English-speaking students (), the Cognitive Profiling System, a digital test aimed at learners between 4 and
7 years of age (), the Dytective test, a digital tool that incorporates a screening test that allows
risk situations to be detected in cases of dyslexia (), and the DST-J: Test for the detection of dyslexia in children () which has allowed the identification of the aspects in which the greatest limitations
are presented by students who suffer this learning disorder. Having said that, all
these instruments are standardized tests aimed at specialized professionals whose
purpose is to evaluate students individually with great amounts of time to determine
whether or not they suffer from dyslexia.
Nevertheless, prior to carrying out this personalized assessment, previous detection
in the classroom of the students who are at risk of presenting dyslexia is necessary
which, if done with adequate instruments, will improve the effectiveness of the detection
and consequently the educational intervention. However, there are very few existing
instruments aimed at teachers so that they can quickly and reliably identify schoolchildren
who are at risk of presenting this learning disorder.
In this veil, and since dyslexia is one of the main learning difficulties, teachers
need validated tools that help them identify students who are at risk of presenting
dyslexia, especially at times when the first manifestations of this disorder become
apparent. Hence the objective of this work, which aims to develop and validate a scale
that allows the quick and reliable identification of students in the first levels
of Primary Education who present symptoms of dyslexia at the beginning of the reading
and writing acquisition process.
Method
Participants
A total of 458 teachers participated in the validation process of the scale, 25.3%
of which were men and 74.7% women, all workers in the early years of Primary Education
belonging to state and charter schools, all of them with several years of experience
and having worked with students with dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Regarding
the time of teaching experience, 35.6% had been practicing the profession between
10 and 14 years, 46.7% between 15 and 19 years and 17.7% more than 20 years. All of
them voluntarily responded to the online questionnaire designed for the validation
of the scale. A simple random sampling process was followed.
An informed consent letter was issued with the purpose of informing the educators
of the objective and procedure of the study, in addition to ensuring the privacy and
confidentiality of the participants’ data.
Instrument
Data was collected using an instrument designed from the information present in the
scale for the identification of indicators of dyslexia in adolescents of secondary
education together with the consideration of other components included in different
validated instruments such as the Prolexia tool, the Cognitive Profiling System and
the DST-J: Test. This task was carried out through an open-source survey composed
of 24 items, aimed at providing teachers with a greater understanding of students
with difficulties in learning written language. The method chosen to review content
validity was the calculation of descriptors to determine the validity index, obtained
from the evaluation of 18 experts, nine counsellors from educational centres with
extensive experience in the field of learning difficulties and nine university teachers
with empirical publications in prestigious journals on learning disabilities and developmental
disorders. In this sense, the criteria proposed by Skjong & Wentworht (2000) were
taken into consideration, (a) experience in making judgments and decision-making based
on evidence (degrees, research, publications, position, experience and awards, among
others), (b) reputation in the community, (c) availability and motivation to participate,
and (d) impartiality and inherent qualities such as self-confidence and adaptability.
Additionally, interobserver agreement was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa index,
which establishes moderate agreement as results in the ranges 0.41-0.60, substantial
agreement in the ranges 0.61-0.80, and almost perfect agreement 0.81-1.00. A 4-point
Likert scale was used that addressed the representativeness, relevance, adequacy,
comprehension, ambiguity, and clarity of the items (Abal et al., 2017). After the
metric analysis of the items, the elimination of 4 of them was recommended (low correlations,
increases in Cronbach’s alpha if the item is eliminated...) leaving the scale composed
of 20 items.
The purpose of the final version of the scale is to design and validate a tool that
allows identifying students who may present dyslexia from the first moments in which
they come into contact with written language. It is an instrument composed of different
types of items, to respond with a Likert scale of four levels (1: Strongly agree;
2: Agree, 3: Disagree; 4: Strongly disagree). Table 1 shows the final scale.
Items
Average
Typical Deviation
Asymmetry
Kurtosis
1.- Limitations in verbal fluency and lack of vocabulary.
3.56
.32
.46
-.83
2.- Difficulties in reading and writing long and infrequent words.
3.83
.51
.71
-.15
3.- Greater ability of manual skills than of linguistic ones.
3.60
.71
.38
.26
4.- Problems in phonological awareness and in the association of correspondences between
phonemes and graphemes.
3.75
.12
.12
-.27
5.- Presence of errors in reading: omissions, substitutions, inversions...
3.96
.24
-.15
-.48
6.- Errors in the tracing of letters and numbers.
3.11
.37
.16
-.72
7.- Limitations in auditory and short-term memory.
3.56
.48
.32
.51
8.- Excessive pressure on the paper when writing with association of problems with
the digital clamp
2.87
.58
-.37
.26
9.- Attentional and concentration problems in carrying out tasks.
3.75
.68
.14
-.68
10.- Lack of motivation and lack of interest, especially in linguistic tasks.
3.80
.51
.37
-.29
11.- Problems in the clarity and structure of their oral presentations.
3.31
.29
-.28
-.53
12.- Deficiencies in following instructions and oral explanations.
3.68
.14
.61
-.81
13.- Personal distrust, insecurity and low self-esteem.
3.72
.33
.82
.14
14.- Lack of reading fluency and expressiveness.
3.93
.20
-.15
.31
15.- Deficiencies in remembering the information received through reading.
3.82
.17
.39
.17
16.- Writing making natural and arbitrary spelling errors.
3.95
.21
-.23
-.57
17.-Deficiencies in calculation (alignment) and in mathematical reasoning.
3.46
.38
.24
-.48
18.- Problems to maintain the continuous stroke of the letters when writing.
3.51
.42
-.37
.65
19.- Irregular handwriting and misalignment in writing.
3.11
.58
.52
-.29
20.- Problems in the organization and planning of school tasks.
3.27
.39
.63
-.41
Table 1Final version of the dyslexia risk indicators scale at the beginning of the Primary
Education.
Process
The process of design, validation, reliability analysis and exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of the scale consists of different stages. Initially, the first version
of the scale was developed based on the bibliography on the subject and professional
experience. In the second stage, the content validity was analysed using the Delphi
method (Astigarraga, 2008). This method indicates the need for expert judgment to
validate the scale, after verifying its reliability. In this sense, a validation process
analogous to that conducted by Mérida et al. (2015) was carried out, qualitatively
and quantitatively analysing the opinions of the experts.
Twenty expert teachers in learning difficulties, specialist teachers of therapeutic
pedagogy, hearing and language teachers and school counsellors participated in the
expert judgment, all of them with a good reputation among the educational community,
availability, motivation to participate, impartiality and teaching experience from
8 to 20 years; these experts were 10 women and 8 men, aged between 35 and 57 years.
Participation was anonymous, through a virtual platform enabled to assess the level
of consistency in each of the items with respect to the validity criteria proposed
by Escobar-Pérez & Cuervo-Martínez (2008). These authors propose four basic criteria:
Clarity, the item is easily understood; Coherence, the item is related to that evaluated; Relevance, the item is essential to evaluate what is intended and Sufficiency, the proposed items are sufficient to fully evaluate what is intended. These criteria
were assessed with scores between 0 and 3, with 3 being the maximum value of the scale.
When evaluating the content analysis, regarding the criterion of clarity of the instrument,
most of the expert judges made a satisfactory assessment, granting a score of 3 (M
= 2.96) so they considered that the reagents were adequate for the level of the students.
In relation to the criteria of coherence and relevance, the experts agreed that the
test items are related and are essential to achieve what is intended to be evaluated
(Coherence M = 2.87; Relevance M = 2.93). Regarding the sufficiency category, most
of the experts marked option 3, thus considering that the number of tasks was sufficient
to reach the objective of the instrument (M = 2.91). Interobserver agreement analysis
was supported by the Fleiss kappa index (2000), obtaining the following results; for
the clarity variable a result of 0.81 was obtained, for the coherence variable a value
of 0.78 was reached, for the sufficiency variable a result of 0.83 was achieved, while
for the relevance variable a result of 0.93 was reached, which corresponds to a very
high agreement among the experts.
In the next stage, through intentional non-probabilistic sampling, the scale was administered
to 458 teachers and its reliability was analysed. Subsequently, a dimensional analysis
of the construct was conducted, carrying out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) together with the analyses of favourable
and unfavourable fit of the obtained model.
Statistical analysis
For data analysis, the statistical program SPSS version 23 was used and internal consistency
and reliability were measured. First the data obtained from expert judgment were analysed.
In this analysis the means were calculated to obtain the value relative to the clarity,
necessity and adequacy of the items on the scale. On the other hand, an evaluation
of the reliability of the scale was preformed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient,
which made it possible to analyse the global reliability and the reliability and individual
variances of each item. Finally, the AFE and AFC were carried out, through which the
data obtained from the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin & Bartlett tests were analysed, as well
as the eigenvalues and communalities. After carrying out the CFA, an analysis of favourable
and unfavourable fit was carried out with the EQS version 6.2 software, to verify
that the model obtained from the AFE and the CFA was adequate.
Results
The results obtained in each of the analysis carried out are presented below. The
EFA made it possible to compare the underlying structure of the instrument with the
theoretical structure from which it was based, offering important information to study
the validity of the construct and improve the questionnaire considering the data obtained.
In order to analyse the feasibility of using factor analysis to determine the construct
validity of the EIRD-EP Scale, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measurements were used
and the Bartlett Sphericity Test. The KMO adequacy measurement obtains a score of
.8362, a value considered adequate (Hair et al., 2004), while the Bartlett Sphericity
test presents a significant value of 205.041 (p = 0.000). These findings indicate
that it is possible to carry out the Exploratory Factor Analysis (Kaplan & Saccuzzo,
2006).
Exploratory factor analysis
Once the feasibility criteria were verified, an exploratory factorial analysis was
carried out with the extraction of principal components and the Varimax method of
orthogonal rotation with half the sample, which reflects four factors that explain
73.45% of the variance, oscillating the communalities between .65 and .96.
From the observation of the rotated factors of the matrix and the factorial weight
of each one of the items (Table 2), it is verified that all the items present loads greater than .4 that are grouped
into 4 dimensions. Items with loads greater than .4 which appear in more than one
factor have been located taking into account the highest load. The internal consistency
indices of each factor were quite acceptable (See Table 2), with the Cronbach’s Alpha values obtained as follows: Oral Language = 0.892, Instrumental Learning = 0.987, Graphomotor Development = 0.835 and Cognitive Abilities = 0.873.
Items
F1
F2
F3
F4
Com.
Oral Language (OL)
1.- Limitations in verbal fluency and lack of vocabulary.
.678
.651
2.- Problems in the clarity and structure of their oral presentations.
.746
.723
3.- Failure to follow instructions and oral explanations
.779
.748
Instrumental Learning (IL)
4.- Problems in phonological awareness and in the association of correspondences between
phonemes and graphemes.
.976
.968
5.- Presence of reading errors: omissions, substitutions, inversions...
.952
.911
6.- Reading lacks fluency and expressiveness.
.938
.946
7.- Deficiencies in remembering the information received through reading
.965
.943
8.- Writing with natural and arbitrary spelling errors.
.978
.914
9.- Difficulties in reading and writing long and infrequent words.
.965
.938
10.- Deficiencies in calculation (alignment) and in mathematical reasoning.
.849
.822
Graphomotor Development (GD)
11.-Errors in the tracing of letters and numbers.
.803
.758
12.-Excessive pressure on the paper when writing with associated problems with the
digital clamp.
.824
.801
13.- Problems to maintain the continuous stroke of the letters when writing.
.867
.823
14.- Irregular handwriting and misalignment in writing.
.912
.894
Cognitive Abilities (CA)
15.- Attentional and concentration problems in carrying out tasks.
.876
.834
16.- Limitations in auditory and short-term memory.
.743
.715
17.- Greater ability of manual skills than of linguistic ones.
.889
.862
18.- Lack of motivation and lack of interest, especially in linguistic tasks.
.834
.807
19.- Problems in the organization and planning of school tasks.
.875
.861
20.- Personal distrust, insecurity and low self-esteem.
.852
.812
Cronbach’s Alpha
.892
.987
.835
.873
Number of items
3
7
4
6
Variance explained
15.73%
27.29%
12.17%
18.26%
Total explained variance
73.45%
Cronbach’s Total Alpha
.896
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
.87
Table 2Rotation of factors of the dyslexia risk indicators scale at the beginning of Primary
Education. Communalities, explained variance and Cronbach’s Alpha
Confirmatory factor analysis
The favourable fit indices of the four-factor model indicated on the scale demonstrate
a good fit of the model. However, after the EFA, the data from the second half of
the sample were subjected to an AFC to corroborate the fit of the model.
Following Tomas & Oliver (1998), a series of indices were calculated; the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA); favourable fit indices: GFI, AGFI and PGFI;
and indices that use the standard independence model as the basis for comparing the
NFI, relative fit index (RFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index
(CFI). From an analytical perspective, the factor loadings and the percentage of variance
explained for each item were compared. Table 3 shows that the chi square (S-Bχ2) is significant for the model and its standard value
is below the recommended cut-off value of less than 3 (Bollen, 1989). The RMSEA indicates
a reasonable fit of less than 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1992), as well as NNFI, CFI and
IFI values that exceed the recommended cut-off value and are shown to be close to
the unit (>.90) (Loehlin & Beaujean, 2017).
Model
gl
/g.l.
RMSEA
CFI
IFI
NNFI
4 factors –20 items
435.60
237
2.12
.006
.957
.952
.932
Table 3Favourable fit of the scale of dyslexia risk indicators at the beginning of Primary
Education.
Regarding the review of the reliability of each of the four factors (Table 4), it is observed that Cronbach’s alpha values are above the recommended value of
0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Similarly, it is found that the composite reliability
and the average variance extracted are higher than the recommended 0.5 (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988), which reflects adequate reliability.
F1
F2
F3
F4
AVE
.68
.79
.76
.73
CR
.86
.93
.87
.92
AVE
.78
.74
.71
.68
.863
.956
.857
.862
Table 4Scale Reliability
Finally, a discriminant validity analysis was carried out with the calculation of
the correlations between the factors (Table 5). All load values appear below the threshold that Kline (2005) recommends (.85) for
each factor. Likewise, the Fornell & Larcker (1981) criterion is met, which indicates
that the square root of the AVE must be greater than the correlation it has with any
other construct.
F1
F2
F3
F4
F1
.78
F2
.365
.74
F3
.416
.323
.71
F4
.284
.271
.245
.68
Tabla 5Correlations between factors
Discussion and Conclusions
The objective of this work has been the elaboration and validation of a scale to identify
schoolchildren who are at risk of presenting dyslexia in the first levels of Primary
Education, given the importance of early identification to intervene as soon as possible
in said learning problem. This work is based on the need to have scientifically validated
instruments for the detection and educational intervention of learning difficulties
and more specifically of dyslexia at the beginning of compulsory education.
The resulting instrument is called the Dyslexia Risk Indicators Scale at the Beginning of Primary Education (EIRD-EP), which has been validated with a sample of 458 teachers from different
state and charter schools. The study has shown that the questionnaire has good psychometric
properties and constitutes a valid and consistent alternative to identify students
who are at risk of presenting dyslexia and who therefore require a differentiated
follow-up in order to favour the verification or not of this learning disorder.
In the present work, the analysis plan made it possible to approach the factorial
structure of the scale. It was found that the EIRD-EP instrument has adequate validity, therefore its application is suitable for teachers
who work in the first school levels of Primary Education since it has a consistent
factorial structure. Factor analysis indicate a structure made up of four factors,
with high coherence from a theoretical point of view. The factorial solution obtained
is consistent with the theoretical explanations and research carried out on dyslexia
(; ; ; Smith-Spark & Fisk, 2007) that defend that it is not only a difficulty in reading,
but other facets that are also present in this disorder must be attended to (see Appendix).
The four factors of the scale jointly explain 73.45% of the variance. The first factor,
Oral Language, named after the meaning of the items with the greatest weight, explains 15.73% of
the variance. Scoring high in this dimension implies limitations in linguistic development
at the verbal level, which constitutes a handicap not only for adequate school and
social communicative development, but also for the process of acquiring reading and
writing, as these learnings are directly linked to the process of acquiring written
language (; ), which requires dynamics aimed at lexical development, clarity and organization
of speech, and oral comprehension ability to follow instructions and simple explanations.
The second factor, Instrumental Learning, explains 27.29% of the variance. Students who are assessed with high scores in this
factor should be a cause for concern by teachers because they present relevant limitations
in the learning process, which shows that these students require more individualized
and specialized attention from an early age. They manifest relevant difficulties in
the skills that constitute the basis of school learning such as command of phonological
awareness, phoneme-grapheme and grapheme-phoneme correspondence processes, reading
decoding, orthographic representation of words, fluency and prosody in reading, the
automation of simple numerical operations and deductive logical reasoning. The importance
of this situation is defended by the current prevention models (; ) that emerge as an alternative to the wait-for-failure models that have prevailed
in recent decades and that have not managed to reduce school failure and dropout.
The third factor, Graphomotor Development, explains 12.17% of the variance. Schoolchildren who score high in this dimension
require proposals that stimulate the skills involved in the adequate development of
fine motor skills, as well as in the improvement of motor relaxation and fluidity
of movement. For this purpose, the exercise of graphomotor skills, manual eye coordination,
spatial orientation, as well as pictographic and scriptographic techniques is required.
Different authors (; ) defend the importance of early identification of these difficulties for the design
of an effective early intervention to improve school performance.
Finally, the fourth factor, Cognitive Abilities, explains 18.26% of the variance. Schoolchildren who score high in this dimension
show cognitive and emotional processes that must be addressed as a priority. In this
sense, deficiencies in attention and concentration capacity, limitations in working
memory, problems in organization and personal planning are directly related to school
difficulties (; ; ), which requires their identification and the implementation of measures that contribute
to their re-education and improvement. Similarly, the early detection of problems
of demotivation, mistrust, insecurity and low self-esteem are facets that require
special attention so that the training process carried out in schools does not generate
emotional problems that trigger frustration and abandonment of the educational system,
the latter a very worrying situation in Spain, since according to the last report
issued, the rate of early educational dropout stands at 16% ().
In short, detecting the incidence of students who are at risk of presenting dyslexia
or other learning difficulties is an aspect of great relevance, especially in early
ages, since it allows the implementation of effective action that contribute to re-education
and training improvement for these schoolchildren, since, as has been shown, early
intervention is one of the best means of achieving positive results in the academic
progress of schoolchildren (; 2018; ; ). In this sense, the instrument presented in this work constitutes a resource of
great value for the identification and treatment of learning difficulties. One of
the advantages of this tool is that it allows us to quickly identify schoolchildren
who are at risk of presenting dyslexia, or other learning difficulties, avoiding extensive
and costly individualized examinations.
The results obtained in the AFE and AFC, allow us to point out that the "EIRD-EP" instrument constitutes a valid and reliable educational resource for the early detection
of students who are likely to present dyslexia or other learning problems that may
interfere in educational success. This scale is a brief, easy and quick to administer
tool that aims to help teachers, pedagogues, psychologists and all those professionals
related to dyslexia and learning difficulties to identify students who are at risk
of presenting dyslexia or other learning difficulties in addition to generating positive
attitudes towards the implementation of inclusive methodologies. Similarly, it allows
researchers to delve into the study and treatment of dyslexia, its background and
the consequences it can have on the development of learners.
A limitation of the present work that would be interesting to consider in future studies
is that the socio-family context has not been included, which could contribute to
offering more information by adding some items referring to family members on the
evolutionary development of the apprentice. Similarly, it would be desirable in future
studies to carry out longitudinal analysis to find out the academic progress of students
detected with dyslexia based on the measures implemented from the detection at an
early age.
References
1
Ares, M., Alfonso, S., & Deaño, M. (2021). Eficacia del programa de Facilitación de
la Planificación para la prevención de dificultades de comprensión lectora. Investigaciones Sobre Lectura, 15, 46-63. https://doi.org/10.24310/isl.vi15.12561
2
Arrimada, M., Torrance, M., & Fidalgo, R. (2020). El modelo de Respuesta a la Intervención
en escritura: revisión de medidas de evaluación y prácticas instruccionales. Papeles del Psicólogo, 41(1), 54-65. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2020.2918
3
Binks-Cantrell, E., Joshi, R. M., Washburn, E. K., & Hougen, M. (2012). The Peter
effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
4
Collados, L., Hernandez, M. A., & Baello, C. (2019). La mejora de la competencia comunicativa
en el alumnado disléxico. Un estudio de casos. ReiDoCrea, 8, 389-398.
5
Cuetos, F., Arribas, D., Suárez-Coalla, P., & Martínez-García, C. (2020). PROLEXIA. Diagnóstico y Detección Temprana de la Dislexia. TEA Ediciones.
6
Cuetos, F., Molina, M. I., Suárez-Coalla, P., & Llenderrozas, M. C. (2017). Validación
del test para la detección temprana de las dificultades en el aprendizaje de la lectura
y escritura. Revista Pediatría Atención Primaria, 19, 241-246.
7
Echegaray-Bengoa, J., & Soriano-Ferrer, M. (2016). Conocimientos de los maestros
acerca de la dislexia del desarrollo: implicaciones educativas. Revista Aula Abierta, 44(2), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aula.2016.01.001
8
Eurostat (2021, junio). Early leavers from education and training. Eurostat: Oficina Europea de Estadística. https://bit.ly/2MYlD4q
9
Fawcett, A. J, & Nicolson, R. L. (2013). DST- J: Test para la detección de la dislexia en niños. Tea ediciones.
10
Ferrada, N., & Outón, P. (2019). Eficacia de un programa de fluidez lectora con escolares
disléxicos. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 39(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2018.05.003
11
Fleiss J. L. (2000). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley.
12
González, H. (2018). La Grafomotricidad y su incidencia en el desarrollo psicomotor
de los estudiantes de segundo grado de Educación básica elemental. Espirales, Revista Multidisciplinaria de Investigación, 2(22), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.31876/re.v2i22.359
13
Gutiérrez, A. (2020). Autorregulación del aprendizaje: desenredando la relación entre
cognición, metacognición y motivación. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 12(19), 81-108. https://doi.org/10.18175/VyS12.1.2021.4
14
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., De Vicente-Yagüe, M. I., & Jiménez-Pérez, E. (2021). Efectos
de la conciencia suprasegmental en el aprendizaje de la lectura en los primeros cursos
escolares. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 26(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2020.10.001
15
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., & Díez, A. (2020). Conocimientos de los estudiantes de Grado
en Maestro en Educación Infantil y Primaria sobre la dislexia y su influencia en el
aprendizaje. In R. Roig-Vila (Ed.), La docencia en la enseñanza superior. Nuevas aportaciones desde la investigación e
innovación educativas, (pp. 225-232). Octaedro.
16
Gutiérrez-Fresneda, R., Díez, A., Ramos-Fernández, E., & Verdú-Llorca, V. (2021).
Saberes sobre la dislexia y las repercusiones en el aprendizaje escolar de los estudiantes
de Grado en Maestro en Educación Infantil y Primaria. In R. Satorre, A. Menargues,
& R. Díez (Eds.), Redes-innovaestic 2021, (pp. 48-49). Universidad de Alicante.
17
Jiménez, J. E. (2019). Modelo de respuesta a la intervención: Un enfoque preventivo para el abordaje de las
dificultades específicas de aprendizaje. Pirámide
18
Luque, M. (2018). Prevención de dificultades lectoras y escritoras en Educación Infantil.
Revista Internacional de Apoyo a la Inclusión, Logopedia, Sociedad y Multiculturalidad,
4(3), 56-65. https://doi.org/10.17561/riai.v4.n3.13
19
Miles, T. R. (1982). The Bangor Dyslexia Test. Learning Development Aids.
20
Ortiz, M., Okendy, M., Parra A., & Marcela, J. (2017). Funcionamiento cognitivo y
estados emocionales de un grupo de niños y adolescentes con bajo rendimiento académico.
Revista Neuropsicologia Latinoamericana, 9(3), 13-22.
21
Outón, P., & Suárez, A. (2010). Adaptación y validación del Test de Dislexia Bangor.
Revista de Investigación Educativa, 28(2), 445-457.
22
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge
of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and
student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 224-248. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851364
23
Pina, V., Hernández-Pérez, E., Rabadán, J. A., Hernández-Pallarés, L., & Fenollar,
J. (2020). PREDISCAL, Screening de Dificultades Lectoras y Matemáticas. TEA Ediciones.
24
Ramírez, A., & Martín, F. J. (2020), La importancia de la atención temprana para prevenir
dificultades lectoras. Trances: Transmisión del conocimiento educativo y de la salud, 12(6), 891-903.
25
Rello, L. (2018). Superar la dislexia: Una experiencia personal a través de la investigación. Paidós Educación.
26
Ruiz-López C. P., Salvador-Moysén J., & Trejo-Oviedo, M. E. (2010). Escala para identificación
de indicadores de dislexia en adolescentes de educación media y media superior. Revista Salud Pública y Nutrición, 11(3), 1-9.
27
Sala-Torrent M. (2020). Trastornos del lenguaje oral y escrito. En AEPap (Ed.). I
Congreso de Actualización Pediatría (pp. 251-264). Lúa Ediciones.
28
Sanz, E., Martín-Lobo, P., Urchaga, J. D., & Irurtia, M. J. (2020). Estudio longitudinal
de la escritura en estudiantes con Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad
(TDAH). Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 95(34.3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v34i3.77972
29
Singleton, C. H., Thomas, K. V., & Leedale, R. C. (1996). Cognitive Profiling System. Chamaleon Educational Systems Ltd.
30
Tamayo, S. (2017). La dislexia y las dificultades en la adquisición de la lectoescritura.
Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 21(1), 423-432. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v21i1.10372
31
Washburn, E. S., Joshi, R. M. & Binks-Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of
basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17, 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.426
32
Washburn, E. K., Binks, E. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2014). What do preservice teachers
from the USA and the UK know about dislexia? Dyslexia, 20, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1459
Appendices
Appendix
Final version of the dyslexia risk indicators scale at the beginning of the Primary
Education stage (EIRD-EP)
Items
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Score
3
2
1
0
Oral Language (OL)
1.- Limitations in verbal fluency and lack of vocabulary.
2.- Problems in the clarity and structure of their oral presentations.
3.- Failure to follow instructions and oral explanations.
Instrumental Learning (IL)
4.- Problems in phonological awareness and in the association of correspondences between
phonemes and graphemes
5.- Presence of reading errors: omissions, substitutions, inversions...
7.- Deficiencies in remembering the information received through reading
8.- Writing with natural and arbitrary spelling errors.
9.- Difficulties in reading and writing long and infrequent words.
10.- Deficiencies in calculation (alignment) and in mathematical reasoning.
Graphomotor Development (GD)
11.-Errors in the tracing of letters and numbers.
12.-Excessive pressure on the paper when writing with associated problems with the
digital clamp.
13.- Problems to maintain the continuous stroke of the letters when writing.
14.-Irregular handwriting and misalignment in writing.
Cognitive Abilities (CA)
15.-Attentional and concentration problems in carrying out tasks.
16.- Limitations in auditory and short-term memory.
17.- Greater ability of manual skills than of linguistic ones.
18.- Lack of motivation and lack of interest, especially in linguistic tasks.
19.- Problems in the organization and planning of school tasks.
20.- Personal distrust, insecurity and low self-esteem.
