Early Identification and Prevention of Difficulties in Learning to Read - a Global Perspective University of Jyväskylä & Niilo Mäki Institute, Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Heikki Lyytinen, UNESCO professor & GraphoLearn and Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD) teams Early identification and prevention of difficulties in learning to read - a global perspective University of Jyväskylä & Niilo Mäki Institute, Finland .. or how I am trying to approach the goal of my present duty as UNESCO Chair/professor On Inclusive Literacy Learning for All For more, see …GraphoLearn.info and for our related publications, heikki.lyytinen.info Compromised reading skill Biological reasons (% of population) » Global > 5% » Finland > 3% (and other transparent languages) Educational reasons » Global - up to 90% (in developing some countries) » Finland – 0% » >500 million compromised readers! The development of reading accuracy (% correct) during the 1. Grade in Finland Procentage Procentage 36 100 36 100 80 of correct items 27 75 of correct 27 orrect 60 18 18 50 itmes 40 items36 from correct 9 9 25 20 Onumber Number items from 36 0 0 0 0 School +10 vk 1.Gr ends School +10 vk. 1.Gr entry +5 week +15 week entry ends +5 week +15 week Individual development The average development Aro et al., 2004 Early identification - Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD) & Graphogame – our tool for the prevention of RDs The Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia (JLD): An intensive follow-up of children at familial risk for dyslexia from birth > JLD 1994- Timo Ahonen, Mikko Aro, Kenneth Eklund, Jane Erskine, Tomi Guttorm, Leena Holopainen, Jarmo Hämäläinen, Ritva Ketonen, Marja-Leena Laakso, Seija Leinonen, Paavo Leppänen, Matti Leiwo, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Kaisa Lohvansuu, Paula Lyytinen, Anna-Maija Oksanen, Kurt Muller, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, Anne Puolakanaho, Ulla Richardson, Paula Salmi, Asko Tolvanen, Minna Torppa, Helena Viholainen > Graphogame (Ekapeli in Finland, 2004-), the Finnish participants Ekapeli/Graphogame (ks.www.lukimat.fi; grapholearn.info): Mikko Aro, Jane Erskine, Jarkko Hautala, Riikka Heikkilä, Sini Hintikka (Huemer), Ritva Ketonen, Janne Kujala, Juha-Matti Latvala, Lea Niemelä, Marko Niemelä, Emma Ojanen, Mikko Pitkänen, Suzanne Puhakka, Miia Ronimus, Nina Saine, Paula Salmi, Vesa Rantanen, Ulla Richardson Learning game programmers: Iivo Kapanen, Ville Mönkkönen, Miika Pekkarinen Supported by EU, Niilo Mäki Foundation, Academy of Finland, Univ. of Jyväskylä, Tekes, RAY, Ministries of Education & Foreign Affairs Finland, Kela, Finnish Cultural Funds, Nokia Oy, Kone Oy, Wärtsilä Oy. The goals of the JLD following children with familial risk for dyslexia from birth to identify (from children at familial risk for dyslexia) •precursors of dyslexia •predictors of compromised acquisition •developmental paths leading to dyslexia The last step: the development of preventive measures Number of children who have attended the last originally agreed I Screening II Screening III assessment phase in Screening Grade 3 AT-RISK AT-RISK Born at Short GROUP GROUP the Compre- questionnair Assessment hospitals hensive e of parents’ N=117 N=108 of Central questionnair administere reading and infants Finland e children d at the spelling during maternity skills 01.04.93- CONTROL CONTROL clinics 31.07.96 GROUP GROUP N=410 N=8427 N=3146 N= 9368 parents N=105 N=92 parents parents infants infants children Neo- 6 14 18 2 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 6½ nata month mont month years years years years years years years l h AT-RISK GROUP N N N N N N N N N N N = = = = = = = = = = = N=108 107 112 108 108 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 children CONTROL N N N N N N N N N N N GROUP = = = = = = = = = = = Data N=92 96 94 94 95 96 94 95 93 93 93 93 gathering children continue s Primary school Secondary school Adulthoo I II III VII VIII IX 20d grade grade grade grade grade grade years N N N N N N N AT-RISK = = = = = = = GROUP School 107 108 108 85 101 88 27 entry at the age of N N N N N N N 7 years CONTROL = = = = = = = GROUP 92 92 92 66 81 76 16 CLASSMAT N = N = N = N = N = N = ES 1549 1756 2641 1452 1705 204 SPEECH PERCEPTION, CHILD’S COMPREHENSION,PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS • Auditory discrimination • Attention • Phonological processing • Psychophysiological • Vocalization • Temperament • Vocabulary, Morphology, Syntactic skills INTERVENTION NEUROPSYCHO- LOGICAL FUNCTIONS • Phonological • Visuo-spatial skills • Naming • Articulation, Motor Skills • Family School COGNITION ASSESSMEN • IQ, Memory T DOMAINS • Associative learning HOME ENVIRONMENT ACHIEVEMENT • Parent-child interaction • Alphabetic skills • Print exposure • Reading & Spelling • Parenting, Stress • Math skills IDENTIFYING & PREDICTING RISK significant predictors found in the follow-up from birth of children at familial risk for dyslexia (Jyväskylä Longitudinal study of Dyslexia) P = Predictors D = Differences between groups Age Variable 7 - yrs Reading accuracy & speed D 5 - yrs Naming speed P & D 4 - 6 yrs Phonological manipulation P & D 5 - 6 yrs Letter knowledge P & D 5 - yrs Verbal memory P & D 3 - 6 yrs Phonological sensitivity P & D 3 - 5 yrs Inflectional skills P & D 2 - 3 yrs Articulation accuracy P 2 yrs Maximum sentence length P & D 6 mth Speech perception P & D 3-5 days ERP to speech sound P & D 3-5 days ERP to sinusoidal sound/pitch - RD/risk Lyytinen et al., Annals of Dyslexia, 2004; Dyslexia, 2004; Sage Handbook of Dyslexia, 2008 Newborn ERPs to tone frequency change differ between 2nd grade typical control and dyslexic at-risk readers MMN-paradigm Standard Deviant Dev 1100Hz, 12 %, SOA 425 ms Std 1000Hz EOGR EOGL EOGL - EOGR - - 3µV 3µV + + 100ms 100ms PCA components F3 F4 F3 F4 1 2 3 C3 C4 C3 C4 P3 P4 P3 P4 At-risk dyslexic Control typical readers readers (RDFR, N=8) (TRC, N=25) Leppänen et al, 2010, Cortex Quiet sleep Newborn ERPs from the at-risk group (N=40-44) EogL EogR Boston Naming Test 5.5 y -.311* _ 5 µV Audio-phonemic + associations 5.5 y F3 F4 500ms -.451* Word identification 6.5 y -.308* C3 C4 Rapid Naming: Faults 6.5 y .414* P3 P4 Phoneme Deletion 6.5 y -.339* Letter identification 6.5 y 540-630 ms Naming 1st Phoneme 6.5 y -.339* -.342* Word identification 6.5 y Word identification 6.5 y -.339** -.415** Writing letters 6.5 y -.336* /ba/ Reading 6.5 y /da/ -.329* /ga/ Guttorm, Leppänen, Poikkeus, Eklund, Lyytinen, & Lyytinen (2005). Brain event-related potentials (ERPs) measured at birth predict later reading skills in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Cortex, 41, 291-303. 2 vuotta 2.5 Risk group vuotta Control group 3.5 vuotta Group Scale: differences still significant after Z-score 5 controlling IQ vuotta based on the mean and SD of the control group. Is reading acquisition associated with early language delays? • Late talking – delay in the development of expressive language skills (assessed here at 2 years of age) – Similar numbers of children in both groups could be defined as late talkers – Do children with normal speaking at 2.5 years age differ from those who start speaking later (after 2.5 y of age) in their later language development? • If so how? – Is late talking connected to reading acquisition • If so how? Development of language skills among late talkers of the risk and control groups 1.0 At- Controls risk 0.5 Z-score 0 composite of language skills -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 2 3 1/2 5 2 3 1/2 5 Late talkers Late talkers Not late talkers Age (years) Not late talkers Lyytinen P. et al., J. of Speech, Language & Hearing Res;2001 Criteria for dyslexia • A the end of 2. grade eight measures were taken – four measures representing reading/writing accuracy – four measures representing reading fluency • A score exactly at the 10th percentile of the control group’s performance or below was classified as fulfilling the criterion of poor performance in that task • A child was diagnosed as dyslexic/poor reader if she/he – fulfilled the criteria on at least three out of four measures in reading/writing accuracy – OR – on at least three out of four measures in reading fluency – OR – fulfilled the criteria on two measures, both in accuracy AND in the fluency domain. Date Author Title INTERNAL 16 Reading skill at the end of the 1.Grade in the different subgroups of early language development (late expressive or both the expressive and receptive language ) 1,5 Controls with typical start of speaking 1 Composite At risk children with score of typical start of speaking reading 0,5 Controls with late talking accuracy and fluency 0 measures -0,5 Controls with late express.&recept. speech -1 At risk children with late -1,5 talkingr -2.0 Typical At risk children with late Controls At risk group expressir .&recept. speech development of Delayed express. .+receptive early speech speech Control Risk group Lyytinen, Eklund & Lyytinen, 2005 Spelling skills by groups at the end of the first grade Remainder of the 1,5 control group Remainder of the 1 at-risk group 0,5 Late talkers1 control group Mean z- (expressive score 0 delayed) composite Late talkers2 -0,5 control group (receptive and -1 expressive delayed) Late talkers1 at-risk -1,5 group (expressive delayed) -2.0 Late talkers2 at-risk group (receptive and Remainders of Control group At-risk group expressive delayed) the groups Late-talking groups Lyytinen, P. Eklund & Lyytinen, Annals of Dyslexia, 2005 PISA reading outcome, z-score -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 At-risk with no language delay Controls with no language delay At-risk with delay in expressive language Controls with delay in expressive language At-risk with delay in expressive and receptive… Lyytinen, et al. 2015 Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 2, 4, 330-338. 30 At-risk with dyslexia At-risk with 25 NO dyslexia 24,23 Controls with NO dyslexia 20,99 20 17,19 Letter 15,47 15 names 12,44 known 10,07 12,87 10 10,19 7,68 8,1 5 3,12 4,32 5,35 2,55 0 0,73 3.5 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.5 Age (years) The JLD-follow-up from birth to school age of reading-related developmentReceptive speech, 2.5 y.