Comparing two cut-off based criteria while investigating the discriminatory characteristics of a tablet-based dyscalculia screening battery for 5–9 age group

Cangöz B., Olkun S., ALTUN A., Salman F.

Noropsikiyatri Arsivi, cilt.55, sa.2, ss.177-182, 2018 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus, TRDizin)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 55 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2018
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5152/npa.2017.19255
  • Dergi Adı: Noropsikiyatri Arsivi
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.177-182
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Cognitive tasks, Dyscalculia, Dyscalculia screening
  • Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

© 2016 by Turkish Association of Neuropsychiatry.Introduction: Math skills are essential in academic, occupational, and scientific areas as well as in daily life activities. There are two existing models in screening dyscalculia: IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Model (DM), and Response to Instruction (RTI) model. In these models, two different cut-off based criteria (being 1 or 2 standard deviation below within their age groups, and being in the lower 5–10% group) are mainly used. The main purpose of this study is to compare these two different cut-off criteria, based on three sub-tests of Tablet-PC Based Dyscalculia Screening Battery (TAB-DSB) (Canonic Dot Counting-CDC, Symbolic Number Comparison-SNC and Mental Number Line-MNL). It is expected to show which criteria would yield the best discrimination in differentiating students who have dyscalculia tendency from the rest of the students in three sub-tests. Methods: The participants of the study included 316 volunteer 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year elementary school students. Results and Conclusion: The results indicated that CDC, SNC, and MNL (MNL1, MNL2) tasks failed to discriminate the groups when the standard deviation rule (below, above, and within 1 standard deviation) was taken into consideration. On the other hand, these tasks were found to be effective in discriminating the groups when the lower 10% and the upper groups were compared.