Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 620

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence of Reading Disability in Boys and Girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study

Shaywitz, Sally E.·1990·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We hypothesized that results of previous investigations indicating an increased prevalence of reading disability in boys compared with girls reflected a bias in subject selection. In an epidemiologic sample of 215 girls and 199 boys, we identified two groups of reading-disabled children: research identified and school identified. Results indicated no significant differences in the prevalence of reading disability in research-identified boys compared with research-identified girls in either second (17 [8.7%] of 196 boys; 15 [6.9%] of 216 girls) or third grade (18 [9.0%] of 199 boys; 13 [6.0%] of 215 girls). In contrast, school identification resulted in the classification of 27 (13.6%) of 198 boys and seven (3.2%) of 216 girls in second grade and 20 (10.0%) of 199 boys and nine (4.2%) of 215 girls in third grade. Our data indicate that school-identified samples are almost unavoidably subject to a referral bias and that reports of an increased prevalence of reading disability in boys may reflect this bias in ascertainment. These findings caution against relying solely on schools for identification of reading-disabled children. (JAMA. 1990;264:998-1002)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shaywitz, S. E.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1990-08-22
Volume
264
Issue
8
Pages
998
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036
OpenAlex
W4313635345
Cited by
620
References
0
FWCI
22.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.