In response to the requirements of the Disability Act, Dyslexia Screening is now featured in the Learning Styles and Dyslexia interactive screening (LSDis). Every individual student is given a percentage chance of needing support. This ranges from 1% to 90%. This allows you to focus on the students most likely to be dyslexic. This is a rational use of resources since those with a higher chance of being dyslexic are also more likely to need greater support. In some cases, the programme accurately predicts additional learning support needs, without the student being dyslexic. This is because other learning requirements, such as the student being bilingual, can trigger the identified chance. However, in the majority of cases, the reason for the additional learning support requirement is dyslexia.
Any screening process is the attempt to identify the maximum number of students who need support with the minimum amount of effort. This is facilitated in the programme by grading the chances of being dyslexic, so that you can begin by investigating those most likely to be dyslexic. This chance is based on extensive research in both the FE and HE sectors.
It is important to remember that of those with a very high chance (90%), 10% are not dyslexic at all. Similarly, among those with a very low chance, 1% are dyslexic. Individuals can always buck the trend. Consequently, while the programme is highly effective at identifying those most likely to be dyslexic, it is important to investigate further with an open mind.
Many practitioners have told me that the most effective screening is to set written work and analyse it for evidence of dyslexia. The problem with this approach is that it is extremely time consuming and therefore costly. However, this programme is even more accurate, and takes very little time at all. In a study undertaken with over 700 students, we compared the percentage of the total number of known dyslexics (diagnosed by the end of the 2 academic years) against the percentage of students investigated. In this experiment, students were referred to independent educational psychologists for diagnosis. We can therefore compare the predictive power of the programme with an analysis of spelling, writing, and difficulties with "false Spoonerisms" (Uta Frith argues that false Spoonerisms are the best single test with compensating dyslexics at degree level). As most of these tools were undertaken with the same students, direct comparisons are possible. We can see that the program is the most accurate. Interestingly, the comparative accuracy continues to grow as we investigate more of the student body. The comparative accuracy of the screening tools have been given at 4 cut off points, that of investigating 5%, 10%, 15% and 25% of the student body:
| Percentage of dyslexic students identified | ||||
| Screening method | @ 5% | @10% | @15% | @25% |
| LSDis | 34 | 52 | 68 | 80 |
| Weak writing | 23 | 40 | 45 | 55 |
| Poor spelling | 20 | 37 | 43 | 60 |
| False spoonerisms | 20 | 32 | 44 | 64 |
Using the programme to investigate the most likely 5% of the student body, 34% of the dyslexics were identified. This is a significantly higher percentage than the other screening tools which identified 23%, or 20%. If 15% of the students are investigated, 68% of the dyslexics are identified. More than 1.5 times as many dyslexics as the other methods.
The comparative accuracy of the programme can be represented graphically as follows:
There are different requirements of a screening at FE and HE level. At the HE level, many dyslexics are compensating for their difficulties, and the combination of the weighted questions and learning styles patterns are more accurate than either in isolation. At FE level, many students answer the weighted questions positively due to low self-esteem or poor educational experience. The learning style patterns make it possible to identify which of these students is more likely to be dyslexic. Consequently, in both learning environments the programme is highly effective.
Dr Ross Cooper June 2005.