The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reading Disability Defined as a Discrepancy Betwveen Listening and Reading Comprehension: A Longitudinal Study of Stability, Gender Differences, and Prevalence
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether defining reading disability by a discrepancy between group-administered tests of listening and reading comprehension would produce result similar in terms of stability, gender ratio, and prevalence to IQ-achievement test discrepancy definitions. The total population of a small school district ( N = 1,008) was followed from prekindergarten through Grade 7-8 for 13 years. As is often seen in epidemiological studies using IQ and individually administered reading tests to define reading disability, stability in the classification of reading disability was low. Among the participants with a consistent reading disability, the male-to-female ratio was 3.2:1, compared with 1.3:1 for the 5.1% of the sample who were nondiscrepant poor readers in both lower and upper grades. A mean 2.7% of the population was classified as reading disabled over the eight-grade span, and only 1.7% demonstrated a consistent reading disability in both the lower and the upper grades. An increase in the ratio of nondiscrepant to discrepant poor readers after Grade 5 was due mainly to late-emerging poor readers. It was concluded that defining reading comprehension disability in terms of a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension provides a fairly accurate estimate of the stability, gender ratio, and prevalence of the disorder.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Criteria where the classifications differ are 1) only the DSM-5 includes an 'insufficient response to intervention' criterion; 2) only the ICD-11 includes an IQ-discrepancy criterion.”
From Epidemiology of reading disability: A comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria (2022) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cites
THE IDENTIFICATION AND PREVALENCE OF SPECIFIC READING RETARDATION
RODGERS, B. (1983) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1983.tb02570.x · Cited by 134
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1177/002221949102400306 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02648247 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00419386 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02928176 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02648146 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1987.tb03062.x · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948902200905 · DOI
- Finucci, J.M. & Childs, B. (1981). Are there really more dyslexic boys than girls? In A. Ansara, N. Geschwind, A. Galaburda, M. Albert, & N. Gartrell (Eds.), Sex differences in dyslexia (pp.1-9). Towson, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.
- 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.6 · DOI
- 10.1002/1520-6807(199401)31:1<66::AID-PITS2310310109>3.0.CO;2-J · DOI
- Gardner, E.F., 1982, Stanford achievement test
- 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1986.tb00619.x · DOI
- Lyon, G.R., 1995, Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3
- 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00908.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1975.tb01269.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb02643.x · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM199201163260301 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221948902200803 · DOI
- 10.1177/002221949202501001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1985.tb01942.x · DOI
- 10.1177/002221949002300112 · DOI
- 10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1510663 · DOI
- Stanovich, K.E. (1993). The construct validity of discrepancy definitions of reading disability. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh , & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 273-307). Baltimore: Brookes.
- 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 · DOI · Paper page
- Wechsler, D., 1963, Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence
- Wechsler, D., 1974, Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised
- 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1996.tb00086.x · DOI
Cited by
Epidemiology of reading disability: A comparison of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria
Di Folco, C., Guez, A., Peyre, H., & Ramus, F. (2022) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2021.1998067 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Badian, N. A.
- Affiliations
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Badian, Nathlie A.
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-03
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 138-148
- ISSN
- 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4780
- OpenAlex
- W2116699844
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Learning Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Keywords
- reading disorders, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, IQ-achievement discrepancy, diagnostic stability, sex ratio, prevalence, longitudinal follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Auditory Perception, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dyslexia, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Reading, Sex Ratio, Comprehension
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reading Disability Defined as a Discrepancy Betwveen Listening and Reading Comprehension: A Longitudinal Study of Stability, Gender Differences, and Prevalence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/002221949903200204
- The paper
- Badian, N. A. (1999). Reading Disability Defined as a Discrepancy Betwveen Listening and Reading Comprehension: A Longitudinal Study of Stability, Gender Differences, and Prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200204
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.