Research Article

Detection of cut-off point for rapid automized naming test in good readers and dyslexics

Abstract

Background and Aim: Rapid automized naming test is an appropriate tool to diagnose learning disability even before teaching reading. This study aimed to detect the cut-off point of this test for good readers and dyslexics.
Methods: The test has 4 parts including: objects, colors, numbers and letters. 5 items are repeated on cards randomly for 10 times. Children were asked to name items rapidly. We studied 18 dyslexic students and 18 age-matched good readers between 7 and 8 years of age at second and third grades of elementary school; they were recruited by non-randomize sampling into 2 groups: children with developmental dyslexia from learning disabilities centers with mean age of 100 months, and normal children with mean age of 107 months from general schools in Tehran. Good readers selected from the same class of dyslexics.
Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.849 for letter naming, 0.892 for color naming, 0.971 for number naming, 0.887 for picture naming, and 0.965 totally. The overall sensitivity and specificity was 1 and was 0.79, respectively. The highest sensitivity and specificity were related to number naming (1 and 0.90, respectively).
Conclusion: Findings showed that the rapid automized naming test could diagnose good readers from dyslexics appropriately.

1. Wolf M, Denckla MB. RAN/RAS: Rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests. 1st ed. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed; 2005.
2. Wiig EH, Zureich P, Chan HN. A clinical rationale for assessing rapid automatized naming in children with language disorders. J Learn Disabil. 2000;33(4):359-74.
3. Soleymani Z, Saeedmanesh M, Dastjerdi M, Mehri A, Jahani Y. Relationship between phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and reading in first grade students in Tehran, Iran. Audiol. 2010;18(1):18-25. Persian.
4. Soleymani Z, Barkhordar A, Moradi A, Jalaie Sh. Designing and measuring the validity and reliability of rapid automatized naming test in the first-grade students. J Mod Rehabil. 2007;1(2-3):1-6. Persian.
5. Kaplan H, Sadock B. Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. 9th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
6. Behmard F, Estaki M, Ashayeri H, Asadpoor H. The effectiveness of gross and fine motor training on reducing symptoms of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2013;2(2):25-39. Persian.
7. Hammill DD, Mather N, Allen EA, Roberts R. Using semantics, grammar, phonology, and rapid naming tasks to predict word identification. J Learn Disabil. 2002;35(2):121-36.
8. Meyer MS, Wood FB, Hart LA, Felton RH. Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. J Learn Disabil. 1998;31(2):106-17.
9. Vandewalle E, Boets B, Ghesquière P, Zink I. Who is at risk for dyslexia? phonological processing in five-to seven-year-old dutch-speaking children with SLI. J SSR. 2010;14(1):58-84.
10. Tannock R, Martinussen R, Frijters J. Naming speed performance and stimulant effects indicate effortful, semantic processing deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2000;28(3):237-52.
IssueVol 22 No 4 (2013) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Rapid automized naming cut-off point dyslexia sensitivity specificity
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Soleymani Z, Nemati P, Barkhordar A, Baghestani A. Detection of cut-off point for rapid automized naming test in good readers and dyslexics. Aud Vestib Res. 2017;22(4):90-97.