Publication Cover
Studies in Psychology
Estudios de Psicología
Volume 38, 2017 - Issue 1
191
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Empirical research papers / Artículos de investigación empírica

Procedural differences in the calculation of the prevalence of reading difficulties in Spanish-speaking school children / Diferencias procedimentales en el cálculo de la prevalencia del retraso lector en escolares hispanoparlantes

, &
Pages 169-197 | Received 02 Apr 2016, Accepted 27 Sep 2016, Published online: 30 Jan 2017
 

Abstract

The prevalence of reading difficulties (RD) reflects controversial data ranging from 3.1–3.2% to 17.5%. Possible explanations are partly based on the incidence of orthography-specific factors influencing the reading process, but also on methodological differences that hinder comparison of the reported results. For this reason, the present study aims to analyse the prevalence of RD in a sample of 1,408 Spanish-speaking school children by comparing different ways of calculating the prevalence rate. The results reflect a prevalence of 2.2−5.3%, consistent with data reported for predominantly transparent orthographies. Some of the procedures used to identify RD are more accurate in early school years than at more advanced moments of schooling. Furthermore, the consideration of students’ sex when calculating the prevalence of RD seems to represent a more sensitive way of identifying students with RD.

Resumen

La prevalencia del retraso lector (RL) refleja datos controvertidos, que varían desde el 3.1–3.2% al 17.5%. Posibles explicaciones se basan en parte en la incidencia de factores específicos de cada ortografía en el proceso de lectura, pero por otra parte en diferencias metodológicas, que dificultan la comparación de los resultados informados. Por lo tanto, el presente estudio propone analizar la prevalencia del RL en una misma muestra de 1,408 escolares hispanoparlantes, comparando diversas formas de calcular el índice de prevalencia. Los resultados reflejan una prevalencia del 2.2–5.3%, consistente con los datos informados para ortografías predominantemente superficiales. Algunos de los procedimientos empleados para identificar el RL resultan más precisos en los cursos escolares iniciales, que en momentos más avanzados de la escolaridad. A su vez la consideración del sexo de los alumnos a la hora de calcular la prevalencia, parecería representar una medida más sensible para identificar a alumnos con RL.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors./ Los autores no han referido ningún potencial conflicto de interés en relación con este artículo.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

There are no offers available at the current time.

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.