Keyword search (4,163 papers available)

"Johnson AP" Authored Publications:

Title Authors PubMed ID
1 Understanding the experience of adults with dyslexia: a quantitative and qualitative analysis Stark Z; Johnson AP; 40702374
PSYCHOLOGY
2 Validation and Reliability of the Dyslexia Adult Checklist in Screening for Dyslexia Stark Z; Elalouf K; Soldano V; Franzen L; Johnson AP; 39660384
PSYCHOLOGY
3 The effects of simulated and actual visual impairment on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Stark Z; Morrice E; Murphy C; Wittich W; Johnson AP; 35341447
PSYCHOLOGY
4 Individual pupil size changes as a robust indicator of cognitive familiarity differences Franzen L; Cabugao A; Grohmann B; Elalouf K; Johnson AP; 35061832
PSYCHOLOGY
5 Insights from a dyslexia simulation font: Can we simulate reading struggles of individuals with dyslexia? Stark Z; Franzen L; Johnson AP; 34854169
PSYCHOLOGY
6 Assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading: an analysis of print size Morrice E; Murphy C; Soldano V; Addona C; Wittich W; Johnson AP; 34549808
PSYCHOLOGY
7 Validation of the International Reading Speed Texts in a Sample of Older (60+) Canadian Adults Morrice E; Soldano V; Addona C; Murphy CE; Johnson AP; 34460456
PSYCHOLOGY
8 Repetitive visual cortex transcranial random noise stimulation in adults with amblyopia. Donkor R, Silva AE, Teske C, Wallis-Duffy M, Johnson AP, Thompson B 33542265
PSYCHOLOGY
9 Assessing optimal colour and illumination to facilitate reading. Morrice E, Murphy C, Soldano V, Addona C, Wittich W, Johnson AP 33533095
PSYCHOLOGY
10 The Relationship Between Cognitive Status and Known Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Murphy C; Johnson AP; Koenekoop RK; Seiple W; Overbury O; 33178008
PSYCHOLOGY
11 Congenital Deafness Leads to Altered Overt Oculomotor Behaviors. Sharp A, Turgeon C, Johnson AP, Pannasch S, Champoux F, Ellemberg D 32327967
PSYCHOLOGY
12 Music predictability and liking enhance pupil dilation and promote motor learning in non-musicians. Bianco R, Gold BP, Johnson AP, Penhune VB 31745159
PSYCHOLOGY
13 Spatial summation of broadband contrast. Richard B, Hansen BC, Johnson AP, Shafto P 31100132
PSYCHOLOGY

 

Title:Validation and Reliability of the Dyslexia Adult Checklist in Screening for Dyslexia
Authors:Stark ZElalouf KSoldano VFranzen LJohnson AP
Link:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39660384/
DOI:10.1002/dys.1797
Publication:Dyslexia (Chichester, England)
Keywords:Adult Dyslexia Checklistchecklistdyslexiascreening toolvalidation
PMID:39660384 Category: Date Added:2024-12-11
Dept Affiliation: PSYCHOLOGY
1 Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
2 CISSS de la Montérégie-Centre, INLB/Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.
3 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
4 CRIR/Centre de Réadaptation MAB-Mackay du CIUSSS du Centre-Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.

Description:

Dyslexia is a language-based neurobiological and developmental learning disability marked by inaccurate and disfluent word recognition, poor decoding, and difficulty spelling. Individuals can be diagnosed with and experience symptoms of dyslexia throughout their lifespan. Screening tools such as the Dyslexia Adult Checklist allow individuals to self-evaluate common risk factors of dyslexia prior to or in lieu of obtaining costly and timely psychoeducational assessments. Although widely available online, the Dyslexia Adult Checklist has yet to be validated. The purpose of this study was to validate this Checklist in a sample of adults with and without dyslexia using both univariate and multivariate statistical approaches. We hypothesised that the Dyslexia Adult Checklist would accurately distinguish between individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of dyslexia (n = 200) and a control group (n = 200), as measured by total scores on the screening tool. Results from our sample found the Dyslexia Adult Checklist to be valid (Cronbach's a = 0.86), and reliable (sensitivity = 76%-91.5%, specificity = 80%-88%). Compared to the originally proposed cut-off score of 45, given the higher sensitivity rate and negative predictive value, we recommend researchers and clinicians use a cut-off score of 40 to indicate possible mild to severe symptoms of dyslexia when using the Dyslexia Adult Checklist.





BookR developed by Sriram Narayanan
for the Concordia University School of Health
Copyright © 2011-2026
Cookie settings
Concordia University