Publication: Okulöncesi ve ilköğretim birinci sınıfa devam eden öğrencilerde özel öğrenme güçlüğünün belirlenemsi
Abstract
Bu çalışma, öğrenme güçlüğü gösteren çocukların erken tanılanmasına katkıda bulunmak amacı ile yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi, ebeveyn ve öğretmenlerce doldurulmuş, bu listeye göre öğrenme güçlüğü riski taşıyan ve risk taşımayan ilkokul öncesi hazırlık sınıfı ve ilkokul birinci sınıf çocukların zekâ puanları ve profilleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi ebeveyn ve öğretmen formlarının geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması yapılmıştır. Cronbach Alpha analizinde, Öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi ebeveyn formunun iç tutarlılık katsayısı .93 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuca bağlı olarak, formun iç tutarlılık yönünden kullanılabilir olduğu düşünülmektedir. Öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi öğretmen formunun iç tutarlılık katsayısı ise .98 olarak belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen değer oldukça yüksektir. Bu sonuca bağlı olarak, formun iç tutarlılık yönünden kullanılabilir olduğu düşünülmektedir. Öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi ebeveyn ve öğretmen formları için yapılan faktör analizinde, ebeveyn değerlendirmeleri için 9, öğretmen değerlendirmeleri için 3 faktör belirlenmiştir. Ebeveynlerin Öğrenme Güçlüğü Belirti Tarama Listesi Değerlendirmelerinin ortalaması okul öncesi çocuklarda 13.82 iken, ilköğretimde 26.43 tür. Öğretmenlerin Özel Öğrenme Güçlüğü Belirti Tarama Listesi Değerlendirmelerinin ortalaması okul öncesi çocuklarda 11.11 iken, ilk öğretimde 20.56 dır. Okulöncesi için risk belirleme ölçütü 20 puan ve üzeri, ilköğretim 1. sınıflar için 30 puan ve üzeri olarak belirlenmiştir. Buna göre, ebeveynlerin doldurduğu öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesine göre, okul öncesi çocukların %23.5'i, ilkokul birinci sınıf çocukların %33.1'i riskli olarak belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerin doldurduğu öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesine göre, okul öncesi çocukların %15.9'u, ilkokul birinci sınıf çocukların %24.8'i riskli olarak belirlenmiştir. Her iki gruba beraber bakıldığında ebeveynlerin sonuçlarına göre çocukların %28.7 si, öğretmenlerin sonuçlarına göre çocukların %20.8 i riskli olarak belirlenmiştir. Öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesi ile zekâ puanları ve profilleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için, okulöncesi öğrencilerden 10, ilköğretim öğrencilerinden 30 çocuk olmak üzere 40 riskli, 40 risksiz çocuk, cinsiyetlerine göre eşitlenerek rastgele seçilmiştir. Her iki gruba da WISC-R zeka testi uygulanmış, sonuçlar tablolar halinde gösterilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, öğrenme güçlüğü açısından riskli grupta yer alan çocukların, WISC-R sözel, performans ve tüm zekâ puanları risksiz grupta yer alan çocukların puanlarından daha yüksektir. Riskli ve risksiz grupların WISC-R paternleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık olup olmadığını anlamak için Ki-kare testi yapılmıştır. Ki-kare testi, riskli ve risksiz grupların WISC-R paternleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığını göstermektedir. Riskli ve risksiz gruplar, WISC-R Bannatyne Kategorileri açısından, Tek Yönlü ANOVA ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Öğrenme güçlüğü açısından riskli grupta yer alan çocukların puanları, WISC-R mekânsal, kavramsal, sıraya koyma ve kazanılmış bilgi kategorilerinde, risksiz çocukların puanlarından daha düşüktür. Riskli ve risksiz grupların alt test puanları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık olup olmadığını anlamak için, Tek Yönlü ANOVA yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, Genel Bilgi, Benzerlikler, Aritmetik, Sözcük Dağarcığı, Sayı Dizisi, Küplerle Desen, Şifre, alt testlerinde öğrenme güçlüğü açısından risk taşıyan çocukların daha düşük puan aldığını, Yargılama, Resim Tamamlama, Resim Düzenleme, Parça Birleştirme alt testlerinde ise iki grup arasında fark olmadığını göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesine göre riskli bulunan bütün çocuklarda öğrenme güçlüğü olduğundan söz edilemese de, WISC-R zekâ testinin tanı değerinin oldukça yüksek olduğu göz önüne alındığında, öğrenme güçlüğü belirti listesinin, öğrenme güçlüğü açısından riskli çocukları belirlemede kullanılabileceği düşünülmektedir.
This study aims to contribute to the early diagnosis of children with learning disorders. For this aim, Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was filled by the parents and teachers and the intelligence scores and profiles of preschool and primary school first class students who have risk for learning disorder and who have not risk were compared. To realize this aim, reliability and validity studies of the parents and teachers form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist were conducted. Cronbach Alpha analysis showed that internal consistency coefficient of the teachers' form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was .93. According to this result, it is thought that the form is usable regard to internal consistency. Internal consistency coefficient of the parents' form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was found as .98. The result is quite high. According to this result, it is thought that this form is usable with regard to internal consistency. Factor analysis of teachers' and parents form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist resulted in 9 factors for the parents' evaluation and 3 factors for the teachers' evaluation. Mean of the Evaluation of parents Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was 13.82 for the preschool and 26.43 for the primary school. Mean of the Evaluation of teachers Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was 11.11 for the preschool and 20.56 for the primary school. For Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist, cut of point for the risk was taken as 20 for the preschool, 30 for the primary school children. According to the Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist filled by parents, 23.5% of the preschool students and 33% of the primary school first class students were found to be at risk for learning disability. According to the Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist filled by teachers, 15.9% of the preschool students and 24.8% of the primary school first class students were found to be at risk for learning disability. When two groups were investigated together, 28.7% of the children were found to be at risk according to the parents' reports, 20.8 % of the children were found to be at risk according to the teachers' reports. In order to investigate the relationship between Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist and IQ scores and profiles, 10 preschool children and 30 primary school children who have risk for learning disability and who have no risk were chosen randomly and with equal genders. WISC-R was applied to the both group and the results were shown with tables. Results showed that, verbal, performance and total WISC-R scores of children at risk were lower than scores of children who have no risk. To understand if there is a difference between WISC-R patterns of the children who have risk and who have no risk, X2 test was conducted. X2 test results showed that there was no difference between WISC-R patterns of two groups. Children who have risk and who have no risk were compared with One Way ANOVA with regard to their WISC-R Bannatyne Categories. Scores of the risk group for learning difficulties were lower than the scores of no risk children's, with regard to WISC-R Spatial, Conceptual, Sequencing, and Acquired Knowledge categories. To determine if there is a significant difference between subtest scores of children who have risk and children who have no risk, One Way ANOVA was conducted. Results showed that, Information, Similarity, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Digit Span, Block Design and Coding subtest scores of children who have risk were lower than the control group. However there were no differences between two groups on Comprehension, Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly subtests. In the light of these results, although it cannot be said that all children in the risk group who were assessed by Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist have learning disorder, considering the high diagnosis power of WISC-R, it is possible to say that Learning Disorder Checklist can be used in diagnosis of learning disorder.
This study aims to contribute to the early diagnosis of children with learning disorders. For this aim, Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was filled by the parents and teachers and the intelligence scores and profiles of preschool and primary school first class students who have risk for learning disorder and who have not risk were compared. To realize this aim, reliability and validity studies of the parents and teachers form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist were conducted. Cronbach Alpha analysis showed that internal consistency coefficient of the teachers' form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was .93. According to this result, it is thought that the form is usable regard to internal consistency. Internal consistency coefficient of the parents' form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was found as .98. The result is quite high. According to this result, it is thought that this form is usable with regard to internal consistency. Factor analysis of teachers' and parents form of Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist resulted in 9 factors for the parents' evaluation and 3 factors for the teachers' evaluation. Mean of the Evaluation of parents Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was 13.82 for the preschool and 26.43 for the primary school. Mean of the Evaluation of teachers Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist was 11.11 for the preschool and 20.56 for the primary school. For Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist, cut of point for the risk was taken as 20 for the preschool, 30 for the primary school children. According to the Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist filled by parents, 23.5% of the preschool students and 33% of the primary school first class students were found to be at risk for learning disability. According to the Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist filled by teachers, 15.9% of the preschool students and 24.8% of the primary school first class students were found to be at risk for learning disability. When two groups were investigated together, 28.7% of the children were found to be at risk according to the parents' reports, 20.8 % of the children were found to be at risk according to the teachers' reports. In order to investigate the relationship between Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist and IQ scores and profiles, 10 preschool children and 30 primary school children who have risk for learning disability and who have no risk were chosen randomly and with equal genders. WISC-R was applied to the both group and the results were shown with tables. Results showed that, verbal, performance and total WISC-R scores of children at risk were lower than scores of children who have no risk. To understand if there is a difference between WISC-R patterns of the children who have risk and who have no risk, X2 test was conducted. X2 test results showed that there was no difference between WISC-R patterns of two groups. Children who have risk and who have no risk were compared with One Way ANOVA with regard to their WISC-R Bannatyne Categories. Scores of the risk group for learning difficulties were lower than the scores of no risk children's, with regard to WISC-R Spatial, Conceptual, Sequencing, and Acquired Knowledge categories. To determine if there is a significant difference between subtest scores of children who have risk and children who have no risk, One Way ANOVA was conducted. Results showed that, Information, Similarity, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Digit Span, Block Design and Coding subtest scores of children who have risk were lower than the control group. However there were no differences between two groups on Comprehension, Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly subtests. In the light of these results, although it cannot be said that all children in the risk group who were assessed by Learning Disorder Symptom Checklist have learning disorder, considering the high diagnosis power of WISC-R, it is possible to say that Learning Disorder Checklist can be used in diagnosis of learning disorder.