Development of Specific Learning Disability Screening Scale

Abstract
It is known that students with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) are noticed because of the
difficulties they experience in academic lessons, especially in primary school years.
Especially the difficulties they experience in the field of reading, spelling mistakes, problems
in arithmetic skills, attention problems, inadequacy in taking responsibility and
communication skills attract attention. This scale study, which was developed in Turkey in
order to identify students suspected of having SLD during the primary school years and
between the ages of 8-11, by their teachers, is a five-point Likert type, 7-factor and 39-item
measurement tool. The research was carried out with teachers who worked with students with
Special Learning Disability who were working in Ministry of Education and Special
Education and Rehabilitation Centers in the 2019-2020 academic year. A total of 401
classroom teachers and special education teachers from Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Bursa,
Çorum, Erzurum, Gaziantep, Isparta, İzmir, İstanbul, Kayseri, Konya, Sivas and Trabzon
provinces participated in the research. As a result of the research, Exploratory Factor Analysis
and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were done and a seven-factor structure was found. It was
determined that seven-factors contributed 73,224% to the total variance. The first factor was
writing process, the second factor was communication skills, the third factor was literacy
skill, the fourth factor was taking responsibility, the fifth factor was attention skills, the sixth
factor was arithmetic skills and the seventh factor was called as skill of recognition the
numbers. It was determined that the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.963 and the
RMSEA value is 0,063.
Key Words: Specific Learning Disability, Scan Scale, Teacher, Scale Development, Validity
and Reliability

[Link]
It is known that Specific Learning Disability (SLD) affects negatively one or more field
like reading, writing, maths, speaking, listening and reasoning. (Jena, 2013; Silver, Ruff,
Iverson, Barth, Broshek, Bush, Koffler & Reynolds, 2008). It is seen that, children with SLD
are generally diagnosed in primary school years in another saying in the age range of 8-10. In
the process of diagnosing of these children, their academic failures draw attention when
compared to their peers. The basis of the problems they experience in the academic sense is
the difficulties related to mostly reading skills, writing and maths skills. (Mather & Gregg,
2006; Willcutt, McGrath, Pennington, Keenan, DeFries, Olson & Wadsworth, 2019).
According to Gunay Aksoy (2019), recognition of SLD generally emerges with the
difficulties they experience in reading, writing and maths when they start primary school. But
SLD can also be recognized with the difficulties in the fields of attention, motor development
and language development in preschool period. The correct evaluation of these signs that seen
in children by families, teachers and experts is important for appropriate diagnosis and
initiation of treatment.
 The USA individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) defines individuals
with SLD as a disability that shows itself in one or more of the skills that include reading,
writing, speaking, listening, thinking or mathematical processing, using and understanding
written or spoken language. According to IDEA, the definition of SLD includes some
conditions such as developmental aphasia and dyslexia, minor brain dysfunctions, brain
injuries and perceptual disorders. But this definition doesn’t include hearing, vision, mental
and physical disabilities and the learning problems caused by environmental and economic
disabilities in individuals. Also, the results of the intelligence tests that applied to students
with SLD, are usually within or above normal limits. As a result, the fact that students with
SLD don’t have any disability and their academic achievements is low, although their
intelligence levels are within normal limits draws the attention of parents and teachers.
SLD is divided into three categories as mild, moderate and severe according to the level of
learning disability experienced in ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’
(DSM-V, 2013) (Cakıroglu, 2019: 10). Students with SLD in severe limit, experience serious
learning disability in a lot of fields such as reading, writing and maths, and they need intense
support for education. Students with moderate limit SLD, can experience learning disability in
one or more than one field. But with support education that given to these students, who are in
moderate limit, serious improvements can be made in the field that they experience problems.
Students with mild limit SLD, generally experience learning disability in one or two fields.
With the support education that given to these students, who are in mild limit, their learning
difficulties can be overcome.
According to Erkus (2012; 2019:15), scales are tools used in measurement processes. The
functional definition of the variable that is intended to be measured is called scale
development. When the studies in the literature, which developed to identify the students with
SLD, are examined; the sample of the Specific Learning Disability Checklist (SLDC)
developed by Oguzhan (2017) consists of a total 463 students, 227 girls and 236 boys,
between the ages of 6-12. SLDC has prepared as child, parent and teacher forms. There are
items about reading, writing, maths, attention and learning abilities in the checklist. The
Visual Aural Digit Span Test/ VADST scanning tool was developed by Koppitz (1977). The
test which purpose to evaluate the symptoms of specific learning disability, is based on
measuring the verbal and written responses of students between the ages of 5-12 with auditory
and visual presentations. Indigenous Scale for Assessment of Learning Disabilities that
developed by Zahra, Jamil & Khalid (2014), is developed for the students who have learning
difficulties at the age of 6-12. There are 99 items in the scale and consist of cognitive features,
language, listening skill, reading, writing and numerical ability.
The purpose of the Early Learning Observation & Rating Scale (ELORS) scanning tool
was developed by Coleman, West & Gillis (2010). With the Early Learning Observation &
Rating scale (ELORS), it is aimed that families and teachers pay attention to the features that
may be the early signs of learning disability and gather information about little children. This
tool includes gathering information on the fields of perceptual and motor skills, area of self-
management, social and emotional skills, early mathematics, early literacy and receptive and
expressive language. The Dyslexia Early Screening Test that developed by Fawcett &
Nicolson (1995), is designed to be applied by teachers and healthcare professionals and it
longs approximately 30 minutes applying to a child. The test consist of 11 basic subtests and
some areas that includes various function tasks like motor skills, phonological skills and
speed are evaluated.
There are a total 52 items in Okur’s scale (2019), who developed the Early Signs of
Learning Disability Screening Scale (ESLDSS) to identify children aged 4-6 who may have
learning difficulties at early ages. The scale consist of 4 sub factors and the sub factors consist
of language development and communication, cognitive skills, psychomotor skills and social-
emotional skills. The Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory (LDDI) rating scale is
developed by Hammil & Byrant (1998) to help the experts who work in this field to diagnose
the students with learning difficulties who are at the age of 0-8 and 11-17. The scale consists
of 6 independent scales as Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, Mathematics and
Reasoning. Every scale includes 15 items which is easy to rate. Screening for Chineese
Children with Dyslexia screening test that developed by Chan, Ho, Tsang, Lee & Chung
(2014), aims to screen the students with dyslexia in grades 1 through 6. In this scale, there are
65 items for reading, writing, mathematics, language, dictation, concentration, memory,
sequential ability, spatial orientation and general performance.
It is seen that the scale development studies that conducted in the literature are mostly
developed for wide ranging age groups. Besides, it is seen that these developed scales don’t
only target students who are educated at a certain grade. Unlike other scale studies that
conducted in the field, this research was developed to identify only primary school students
aged 8-11. It is thought that the scale developed in the research is important in terms of
detecting the presence of SLD only in primary school students and in 8-11 range age, unlike
other scales, therefore it will make great contributions to the field. And the other importance
of the research is that; with this scale, it allows teachers to evaluate their students in the 8-11
age group attending primary school in a practical way in terms of SLD.
Early diagnosis and treatment for students with SLD are important. That’s why, it is
obvious that the development of measurement tools to identify students with SLD will make
valuable contributions to the field. Therefore, in this research, it is aimed to develop a
screening scale to determine students with Specific Learning Disability who attending
primary school in the range of 8-11 years of age.

[Link]
2.1. Research Model
This study is a scale development research. The stages of the development process of
‘Special Learning Disability Screening Scale’ are given in the below.
2.2. Study Group
Study group of the research consist of teachers who working in the Ministry of National
Education and Special Education and Rehabilitation Centers in the 2019-2020 academic year
and worked with the students who have Special Learning Disability. Classroom teachers and
special education teachers from Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Bursa, Çorum, Erzurum, Gaziantep,
Isparta, İzmir, İstanbul, Kayseri, Konya, Sivas and Trabzon provinces participated in the
research. Demographic information which is belong to the participating teachers involved in
the scale development process is given in table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information of the participations.
Variables n %
Gender of teachers Female 247 61,6
Male 154 38,4
Brach of teachers Special Education Teaching 144 35,9
Classroom Teaching 257 64,1
Total 401 100

When the table 1 is analysed, it is seen that 61.6% of the teachers participating in the
research are women and 38.4% are men and when the branches of the teachers are analysed it
is seen that 64, 1% are classroom teachers and 35,9% are special education teachers.
Demographic information about the students with special learning difficulties that the
participants work with is given in table 2.
Table 2. Demographic information of the students with whom participant teachers
work.
Variables n %
Gender of Students Female 169 42,1
Male 232 57,9
Age of Students 8 79 19,7
9 84 20,9
10 105 26,2
11 133 33,2
Settlement of City Center 283 70,6
Students
Country Town 69 17,2
Town 17 4,2
Village 32 8,0
Grades of students 2 92 22,9
3 101 25,2
4 208 51,9
Total 401 100
 When table 2 is analysed, it is seen that 42,1% of the students with special learning
disability whose lessons the participants conducted are woman and 57,9% are men. Students’
age changes between 8 and 11. Students attend the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades od primary school.
70,6% of the students live in city center, 17,2% live in country town, 4,2% live in town and
8% of students live in village.
2.3. Scale Development Process Steps
Devellis (2016) emphasizes that certain processes should be followed during scale
development stages. Within the scope of the research, these scale development stages
expressed by Devellis (2016), McMillan & Schumacher (2006) are followed. These can be
explained below;
2.3.1. The Stage of Establishing the Theoretical Framework
A literature review was conducted to determine the theoretical framework to identifying
Special Learning Disabilities in the literature. In this context firstly, literature was analysed;
definitions, features, determinations, diagnosing, scales made for scanning tools, magazines,
books and articles were analysed. At the end of literature review, the researcher created a 52-
item trial scale. As a result of the literature review, the researcher determined that the students
with SLD have problems in some areas such as writing, reading, communication, attention,
recognition numeral, counting and problem solving skill.
2.3.2. Item Pool Stage
After the literature study and the trial scale created, to create an item pool; five teachers
working in the field of special education were requested to write items for Special Learning
Disability. Determined theoretical framework was used in the article writing process. By each
special learning disability dimension was expressed to teachers, in this regard teachers were
asked to write down which learning difficulties students might have. (For example, what do
you think the actions that can identify a student has a learning disability in reading and
writing? Write many as much as you can.) These 5 teachers wrote a total of 146 items in 7
dimensions to identify Special Learning Disability within the theoretical framework that given
to them. Then, the items that the teachers wrote were analysed, same expressions were
combined and a total of 81 items were obtained. Lastly, the researcher compared the items
that he wrote and the ones that he got from the teachers and a total of 87 items were obtained.
2.3.3. Content Validity Stage
After the item pool stage, the scale that developed was presented to a total of 6 experts,
including 3 lecturers working in special education and 3 teachers working in the field of
special education. The experts analysed these 87 items, they gave correction suggestion for 5
items, they deleted 9 items and they suggested adding 1 new item. Finally, after the content
validity process 79 items were included in the scale.
2.3.4. Pilot Implementation Stage
After the content validity stage, 79 items expressed as a 5-point Likert (‘1-never’, ‘2-
rarely’, ‘3-occasionaly’, ‘4-usually’, ‘5- always’) were subjected to the pilot implementation
process. Three teachers who have students with Special Learning Disability in their
classrooms were requested to evaluate their students according to the scale. With the pilot
study, it was aimed to test usability of the scale and to reveal possible problems to be faced.
Teachers were requested to apply the developed scale and to offer suggestions that they had
problems. After the pilot implementation, some adjustments were made on the scale regarding
the points that suggested by the teachers.
2.3.5. Validity and Reliability Calculation Stage
Before the validity and reliability calculations, normal distribution analyses of the data
were made. In order to determine the normal distribution of the data that collected from 401
teachers, firstly Kurtosis and Skewness values were examined. The Kurtosis (0.499) and
Skewness (0.612) values of the scale showed that the data were normally distributed (Pallant,
2007). In order to determine normality, the Kolmogorov Smirnov test was also applied to the
data and the analysis showed that the data were normally distributed [D(401)=.745, p>.05]. For
the data that determined to be normally distributed in the next step, Exploratory Factor
Analysis was performed to determine the factor structure of the scale. For the factor analysis
process, both Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were applied. Then, by looking
at the item validity of each item in the scale, the item discrimination power of the items was
determined. And finally, in order to determine that the developed scale is a reliable scale, the
internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) of the scale was calculated.
During the scale development process, while the data analysis was done with the SPSS
21.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) statistical program, the AMOS 16.0 program
was used for confirmatory factor analysis.

[Link]
3.1. Results on the validity of the special learning disability screening scale
In order to introduce the validity of the Identification of Learning Disability Scale, the
construct and item validity were examined. While factor analysis was performed to reveal the
construct validity, the item discrimination power of items was calculated for item validity.
3.1.1. Construct validity of the scale for screening for special learning disabilities
For the construct validity of the scale that was developed to determine the Special
Learning Disability firstly the factor structure was confirmed with Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA), then the validity of the construct was confirmed with Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). In the first stage, Exploratory Factor Analysis, the suitability of the data set
for factor analysis was determined. For that aim, certain conditions must be met. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value is some of the values that can be checked for factor analysis based
on the number of items with the Barlett sphericity test. The Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) value
that was made with the data set was calculated as 0.951. Barlett’s Sphericity test results were
also examined, which is the second statistic. Barlett’s Sphericity test, which was found to be
significant, also showed that the data set [ x 2(3081)=29665.099, p<.05]was suitable for factor
analysis (Field, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). When analysed according to the sample
size, there are suggestions to apply to 3to 5 times the number of items or to collect data from
more than 300 people (Field, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). In this context, it has been
seen that factor analysis can be applied by collecting data from 401 people in the scale with
79 items, both to reach more than 300 participants and in order to meet conditions for
collecting data from 3-5 times the number of items. While the analysis was performed with
Principal Component Analysis, which is one of the factorization techniques, to determine the
explanatory factors, rotation was also performed with Varimax Rotation to determine the
clarity and significance of correlation between the factors. In determining the number of
factors, the Eigen Value (eingenvalue) was taken as 1.0, the lower limit of the factor loading
value of items was taken as 0.40, and the difference in the load value was taken as 0.10 (Field,
2005; Tabachnick ve Fidell, 1996). After the first factor analysis made with 70 items, 12
factors were determined. In the table 3, the factor structure of the scale and the variance
values of each factor are given as a result of the first factor analysis process.
Table 3. Variance values explained after the first factor analysis.
Variance Values That Explained After the First Rotation
Factors Process
Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative Variance (%)
1 30,164 38,182 38,182
2 6,157 7,794 45,975
3 3,885 4,918 50,893
4 2,808 3,554 54,447
5 2,463 3,117 57,565
6 1,873 2,371 59,936
7 1,622 2,053 61,989
8 1,498 1,896 63,885
9 1,399 1,771 65,656
10 1,228 1,555 67,210
11 1,144 1,448 68,658
12 1,066 1,350 70,008

The factor analysis process that was seen in table 3 was repeated four times with the
Varimax Rotation process to capture statistical values for factor analysis. The reason of this is
to identify the items that are not suitable for the factor structure and decrease the correlation
value and by removing these items from the scale, the correlation between the factors in the
scale structure is minimized. In this context, rotation process was done for the four times at
the end 20 items was deleted from the scale. In the first rotation process 22 items
(2,6,8,9,11,12,15,17,18,26,31,32,33,40, 42,63,64,67,71,73,74,78), in the second rotation
process 8 items (3,4,5,7,10,34,60,65), in the third rotation process 5 items (27,28,30,46,61)
and in the fourth rotation process 5 items (45,48,58,59,62) were deleted. After the deleting
item process, a seven-factor structure was determined in the scale.
Table 4. Variance values that explained after the fourth rotation process.
 Variance Values That Explained After the Rotation Process
Factors
Eigenvalue Variance (%) Cumulative Variance (%)
1 16,527 42,378 42,378
2 3,461 8,874 51,252
3 2,405 6,168 57,420
4 2,013 5,160 62,580
5 1,736 4,450 67,030
6 1,299 3,331 70,361
7 1,117 2,863 73,224

While the eigenvalue of the first factor of the scale was calculated as 16,527; the variance
was 42,378%. The eigenvalue and variance values for the other factors were 3.461 for the
second factor, 8.874% for the explained variance, 2.405 for the third factor and 6.168% for
the explained variance, 2.013 for the fourth factor and 5.160% for the explained variance,
1.736 for the fifth factor and the explained variance is 4.450%, the eigenvalue for the sixth
factor is 1.299 and the variance explained is 3.331% and finally the eigenvalue for the
seventh factor is 1.117 and the variance explained is 2.863%. Finally, by examining the items
on the ‘Special Learning Disability Screening Scale’, which is with 7 structures and has 39
items, factors on the scale was called as writing process skills (19,20,21, 22,23,24,25,31),
communication skills (49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56), learning to read and write skills (1,
13,14,16,29,35), taking responsibility skills (66,68,69,70,72), attention skills (75,76,77,79),
arithmetic skills (39,41,43,44,47) and recognizing numerals skills (36,37,38). The ‘KMO and
Bartlett’s Sphericity test results obtained after four rotations for the factor analysis process are
given in table 5.

Table 5. The ‘kmo and barlett’s sphericity’ test results that obtained after the fourth
rotation process.
Measuring Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Sample Adequecy
Chi-Square ,941
Degrees of Freedom (df) 13897,840
Bartlett's Test 741
Significance Level (Sig.) ,05
 Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the data set with AMOS 16.0 program to
confirm the construct validity and the results for determining the Specific Learning Disability
(Figure 1).
 e8 m19
,45

e7 m20
,85

,86
e6 m21
,89
,37

,95
e5 m22
Yazım
,35
,89 Süreci
e4 m23
,80

,89
e3 m24
,48 ,69

e2 m25

e1 m31 ,55

e16 m49
,27

e15 m50 ,79

,88

e14 m51 ,90

,59
,90
,59
e13 m52 İletişim
,78

e12 m53 ,56

,75
,38 e11 m54
,67
,32 ,47

e10 m55
,53
,57
e9 m56
,47

e22 m1

,79
,63
e21 m13
,81
,36

,67
e20 m14
Okuma
Yazma
,82

e19 m16
,66 ,56
,73

,65
e18 m29

e17 m35 ,54

e27 m66 ,58

,76

e26 m68 ,51

,83

,61
,89 Sorumluluk
e25 m69
Alma
,74
e24 m70
,78
,61

e23 m72
,69

e31 m75 ,92

,93 ,37
e30 m76 Dikkat

,88 ,49

e29 m77
,76

e28 m79

,52

e36 m39
,51
,61

e35 m41 ,73

-,26 ,52
,75
e34 m43 Aritmetik

,78

e33 m44
,64

e32 m47
,50

e39 m36
,76

,94
e38 m37 Rakamları
Tanıma
,91

e37 m38
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model
There are statics that were suggested to determine the suitability of confirmatory actor
analysis of the scale (Arbuckle, 2009; Bowen & Guo, 2011; Hoyle, 2012). In order to
determine the validity of the model that developed in line with these suggestions, Chi-square
Goodness of Fit (χ2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values are examined. These values
are χ2/df=3.454 (χ2=2352.274; df=681), RMSEA=0.078, TLI=0.91 and CFI=0.94), and fit
indices are acceptable or close to acceptable. But, in order for the model to better fit; by
making suggestions in the Modification Indices that were suggested by Arbuckle (2009) and
Hoyle (2012), the covariance between the error values within the same latent variable, the
factors, are correlated. Among the errors of the observed variables within the scope of the
correction indices, the adjustments foreseen for the definition of covariance; some
adjustments were made for the items 2-3, 3-6, 4-7 and 7-8 in the latent variables of ‘writing
process skills’, items 9-10, 9-12, 10-12, 13-14 and 15-16 in the latent variable
‘communication skills’ and items 33-36 in the latent variable ‘arithmetic skills’(Figure 1).
Finally, adjustments were added to the model. Fix index values after the correction and
acceptance intervals are given in the table below (Table 6).
Table 6. Model fit index values.
Compliance Statics Perfect Fit Acceptable Fit Fit Values of the
Model

χ2/df ≤3 ≤5 2.604

RMSEA ≤0.05 0.06 – 0.08 0.063

CFI ≥0.97 0.95 – 0.96 0.951

TLI ≥0.95 0.94 – 0.90 0.923

As seen in table 6, fit values χ 2/df=2.604 (χ2= 1746,981; df=671) (RMSEA=0.063;

TLI=0.923 and CFI=0.951) that were calculated in the model shows the correction of the
model.

3.1.2. Item Validity of the Scale for Screening for Special Learning Disabilities
In order to determine item validity of the scale for screening for Special Learnings
Disability, it was investigated whether the averages of the lower and upper 27% groups
differed or not. The differences were compared according to this (Table 7).
Table 7. Comparison of the t values of the lower and upper groups (n1=n2=108).
Group Χ̄
Ite Group Χ̄
Item sd df T Sd df t
s m s
3,1 1,0 21 12,091 2,7 0,9 21 13,053
i1 Lower i21 Lower
5 6 4 * 4 6 4 *
4,5 0,5 4,3 0,8
Upper Upper
4 5 1 0
2,8 1,1 21 14,171 2,5 0,9 21 16,243
i2 Lower i22 Lower
0 0 4 * 9 5 4 *
4,5 0,6 4,3 0,6
Upper Upper
4 5 6 2
2,4 1,0 21 14,608 2,4 0,8 21 17,268
i3 Lower i23 Lower
8 7 4 * 8 6 4 *
4,3 0,7 4,3 0,6
Upper Upper
5 8 1 9
2,9 1,0 21 13,151 2,3 0,8 21 18,715
i4 Lower i24 Lower
5 6 4 * 0 3 4 *
4,5 0,6 4,2 0,6
Upper Upper
0 0 0 5
2,1 0,8 21 18,503 2,2 0,8 21 19,590
i5 Lower i25 Lower
8 7 4 * 9 0 4 *
4,1 0,6 4,2 0,6
Upper Upper
5 8 2 5
1,9 0,9 21 16,082 2,2 0,8 21 17,049
i6 Lower i26 Lower
6 3 4 * 4 2 4 *
3,9 0,8 4,0 0,7
Upper Upper
1 5 6 5
2,1 0,9 21 16,608 2,6 1,0 21 11,173
i7 Lower i27 Lower
5 5 4 * 8 1 4 *
4,0 0,7 4,0 0,7
Upper Upper
4 1 4 6
1,9 0,7 21 18,563 2,2 0,8 21 16,180
i8 Lower i28 Lower
1 9 4 * 1 1 4 *
3,9 0,7 3,9 0,8
Upper Upper
1 9 8 0
i9 Lower 1,8 0,8 21 14,271 i29 Lower 2,4 0,9 21 15,689
 8 4 4 * 1 5 4 *
3,6 1,0 4,1 0,7
Upper Upper
8 0 9 0
2,1 0,8 21 14,460 2,3 0,8 21 14,513
i10 Lower i30 Lower
0 5 4 * 1 7 4 *
3,8 0,8 4,0 0,8
Upper Upper
1 9 2 5
1,8 0,7 21 16,699 2,1 0,9 21 15,560
i11 Lower i31 Lower
7 7 4 * 9 4 4 *
3,8 0,9 4,0 0,8
Upper Upper
0 1 5 0
2,8 1,0 21 12,576 2,4 1,0 21 13,735
i12 Lower i32 Lower
9 9 4 * 9 1 4 *
4,5 0,7 4,2 0,8
Upper Upper
0 7 2 4
2,8 1,0 21 13,001 2,3 0,8 21 17,652
i13 Lower i33 Lower
3 6 4 * 3 3 4 *
4,4 0,7 4,2 0,7
Upper Upper
3 0 5 6
2,2 0,8 21 14,504 1,8 0,7 21 16,476
i14 Lower i34 Lower
0 5 4 * 9 5 4 *
3,9 0,8 3,8 0,9
Upper Upper
3 9 6 9
1,9 0,8 21 12,635 2,3 0,9 21 17,401
i15 Lower i35 Lower
1 7 4 * 7 3 4 *
3,5 1,0 4,2 0,6
Upper Upper
8 7 8 5
1,9 0,9 21 12,789 2,6 0,8 21 16,021
i16 Lower i36 Lower
9 3 4 * 9 7 4 *
3,6 1,0 4,3 0,5
Upper Upper
8 0 1 9
3,0 1,4 21 8,111* 2,5 0,9 21 16,384
i17 Lower i37 Lower
2 9 4 6 3 4 *
4,3 0,9 4,3 0,6
Upper Upper
8 0 1 1
i18 Lower 3,1 0,9 21 10,621 i38 Lower 2,6 0,9 21 16,235
 8 7 4 * 5 0 4 *
4,4 0,8 4,3 0,6
Upper Upper
8 3 5 2
3,2 1,0 21 10,417 2,6 1,0 21 14,179
i19 Lower i39 Lower
9 7 4 * 3 1 4 *
4,5 0,6 4,2 0,6
Upper Upper
5 6 7 5
3,3 1,1 21 10,972
i20 Lower
2 1 4 *
4,6 0,5
Upper
5 9
2,4 0,3 36.957
SCALE Lower 21
6 4 *
OVERAL 4
L 4,1 0,3
Upper
8 4
* p<.05

It was seen that the difference between the upper and lower groups of the items was
significant, and item discrimination was ensured for the all items that make up the ‘Special
Learning Disability Screening Scale’ (Table 7).
3.2. Results Regarding the Reliability of the Screening for Special Learning Disability
Scale
In order to determine the reliability of the ‘Special Learning Disability Screening Scale’,
the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) was calculated. Internal consistency
coefficient value belonging to the scale consisting of 7 factors and 39 items was calculates as
α=.963. Internal consistency coefficient values for sub-factors were calculated as .957 for
writing process skills, .933 for communication skills, .877 for learning reading and writing
skills, .898 for responsibility taking skills, .924 for attention skills, .814 for arithmetic skills
and .898 for number recognition skills. In the scale split test reliability was calculated as
0.936 and test retest reliability was calculated as 0.854. ın the light of the results, it can be
said that the scale is a reliable scale (DeVellis, 2016; Field, 2005).

[Link]
According to the results of this research, ‘special Learning Disability Screening Scale’
consist of 7 factors and 39 items. The first factor is writing process, the second factor is
communication skills, the third factor is literacy skills, the fourth factor is responsibility
taking skills, the fifth factor is attention skills, the sixth factor is arithmetic skills and the
seventh factor is identified as number recognition skills. When it is compared with the
literature, it can be said that scale factors and items are coherent. Thus, considering the studies
on the scales developed and examining the characteristics of students with SLD in the
literature, it is known that there are problems in reading (Oguzhan, 2017; Zahra, Jamil &
Khalid, 2014), reading comprehension and expression (Hammill & Byrant 1998; Willcutt &
et al., 2019; Zahra, Jamil & Khalid, 2014). In the researches, the fact that students with SLD
have problems in writing (Oguzhan, 2017; Willcutt & others., 2019), spelling mistakes
(Hammill & Byrant 1998; İlker & Melekoglu, 2017) and written expression (Hammill &
Byrant 1998; İlker & Melekoglu, 2017) also shows that our developed scale is compatible
with the items and factors.
Also, in the literature; it is determined that the students with SLD have problems like
number recognition in maths (Olkun, Akkurt-Denizli & Gocer-Sahin, 2015), arithmetic skills
(Coleman, West & Gillis 2010; Watson, Gable 2013), problem solving (Olkun, Akkurt-
Denizli and Gocer-Sahin, 2015; Talbot, Astbury and Mason, 2010; Watson and Gable,2013)
and it also shows that the developed scale is valid and reliable. Besides, in the literature; the
fact that students with SLD have communication problems (Coleman, West, & Gillis, 2010;
Okur, 2019; Zahra, Jamil and Khalid, 2014), have problems in taking responsibility
(Coleman, West, & Gillis, 2010), and detecting problems in attention skills (Oguzhan, 2017)
suggests that the developed scale will be effective in determining students with SLD.
In the research, it was founded that 7 factors with Eigen-values greater than 1 were formed
and these 7 factors explained 73,224 percent of the total variance. The eigenvalue of the first
factor of the scale was 16,527 and the explained variance was 42,378%. And respectively, the
eigenvalue belonging to the second factor was 3,461, the explained variance was 8,864%, the
eigenvalue belonging to the third factor was 2,405, the explained variance was 6,168%, the
eigenvalue belonging to the fourth factor was 2,013, the explained factor was 5,160%, the
eigenvalue belonging to the fifth factor was 1,736, the explained variance was 4,450%, the
eigenvalue belonging to the sixth factor was 1,299, the explained variance was 3,331%, and
the eigenvalue belonging to the seventh factor was 1,117 and the explained variance was
2,863%. In the literature, it is stated that it is appropriate for the total explained variance rate
to be above 60% as a result of EFA (Karagoz, 2016: 880). These findings about the developed
scale suggest that the scale will make a positive contribution to the field in identifying
students with SLD.
According to the confirmatory factor analysis result, RMSEA= .063, CFI= .951, TLI=
0.923 and X2/sd= 2.604 values were obtained. The fix index values that were obtained as a
result of the analyses, can be expressed as acceptable or good fit (Cokluk, Sekercioglu &
Buyukozturk, 2014: 272). Since the value of X2/sd= 2.604, which is one of the fit indices, is
less than 3, it has a perfect fit value (Cokluk & et al., 2014: 271). As a result of the analysis,
χ2/df, which is one of the fit indices, shows the perfect fit. According to the literature,
RMSEA value between .05 and .08 is qualified as good fit (Brown, 2006: 84). In this
research, RMSEA value of 0.063 indicates a good fit. CFI value of 0.951 indicates a perfect
fit (Ozdamar, 2016: 185). For TLI a value of 0.923 indicates an acceptable fit.

[Link] AND SUGGESTIONS

 This research is limited to the data obtained from 401 classroom teachers and special
education teachers who have worked with students with SLD between the ages of 8-11. As a
result of the research, ın the factor of the ‘Special Learning Disability Screening Scale’, a
structure with 39 items and 7 factors was determined. It was found that there were 7 factors
with Eigen-values greater than 1 and these 7 factors explained 73,224 percent of the total
variance. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis, χ2/df=2.604 (χ2= 1746,981; df=671),
RMSEA=0.063; TLI=0.923 and CFI=0.951 values were obtained.
The internal consistency coefficient value of the Special Learning Disability Screening
Scale, consisting of 7 factors and 39 items, was calculated as α=.963’. And internal
consistency coefficient values for the sub-factors are calculated as .957 for the first
factor, .933 for the second factor, .877 for the third factor, .898 for the fourth factor, .924 for
the fifth factor, .814 for the sixth factor and .898 for the seventh factor.
In the light of the findings obtained from this research, ‘Special Learning Disability
Screening Scale’ (Appendix 1) can be used as a scale with proven validity and reliability by
teachers and researchers in order to screen students in the 2 nd, 3rd and 4th grades of primary
school and aged 8-11 years whether they have a Special Learning Disability or not.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the teachers who participated in this research.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Chicago, IL.: SPSS Inc.

Bowen, N. K., & Guo, S. (2011). Structural equation modeling. Oxford University Press.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Chan, D., Suk-Han Ho, C., Tsang, S.-M., Lee, S.-H., & Chung, K. (2004). Screening for
Chinese children with dyslexia in Hong Kong: the use of the teachers' behaviour
checklist. Educational Psychology, 24(6), 811-824.
[Link]

Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler icin cok degiskenli
istatistik spss ve lısrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Coleman, M. R., West, T., & Gillis, M. (2010). Early learning observation & rating scale:
Parent-individual child form. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage

publications.
Erkus, A. (2012). Varolan olcek gelistirme yontemleri ve olcme kuramları psikolojik olcek
gelistirmede ne kadar islevsel: yeni bir oneri. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation
in Education and Psychology, 3(2), 279-290. 

Erkus, A. (2019). Psikolojide olcme ve olcek gelistirme ı: temel kavramlar ve islemler.

Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (1995). The dyslexia early screening test. The Irish Journal
of Psychology,  16(3), 248-259. [Link]

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage

Fuchs, L. S., & D. L. Compton, D. L. (2019). Models for ınnovation: advancing approaches to
higher-risk and higher-ımpact learning disabilities science. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 165, 5-10. [Link]

Gunay Aksoy, S. (2019). Specific learning disorder -a life long difficulty. İstanbul Kanuni
Sultan Süleyman Tıp Dergisi, 11(Ek1), 34-39. doi: 10.5222/iksstd.2019.88609

Hammilll, D. & Bryant, B. (1998). Learning disabilities diagnostic ınventory (LDDI Kit).
Texas, Austin: Pro-ed An International Publisher.

Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford

press.

İlker, O. & Melekoglu, M. A. (2017). İlkogretim doneminde ozel ogrenme guclugu olan
ogrencilerin yazma becerilerine iliskin calısmaların incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi
Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Ozel Egitim Dergisi, 18(03), 443-469. DOI:
10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.318602

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Jena, S. P. K. (2013). Learning disability: Teory to practice. New Delphy: Sage Publicatio

Karagoz, Y. (2016). SPSS ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Ankara: Nobel

Akademik Yayıncılık.

Koppitz, E. M. (1977). The visual aural digit span test. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: clarifying, not eliminating, a
construct. professional psychology: research and practice, 37(1), 99-106.
[Link]

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry

(6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson.

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry

(sixth Ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Oguzhan, M. (2017). Usability of the specific learning disorder checklist in primary school
children. (Master Thesis), Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.

Okur, M. (2019). Determining the psychometric properties of the early signs of learning
disability screening scale. (Master Thesis), Anadolu University Institute of Educational
Sciences, Eskisehir.

Olkun, S., Akkurt-Denizli, Z. & Gocer-Sahin, S. (2015). Ogrencilerin diskalkuliye

yatkınlıklarının belirlenmesinde nokta sayılama ve sayısal karşılaştırma becerileri.
Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance & Counseling, 3(2),
62-71.

Ozdamar, K. (2016). Olçek ve test gelistirme yapısal esitlik modellemesi. Eskisehir: Nisan
Kitapevi.

Pallant, J. (2007) SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using spss for
windows. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw Hill Open University Press.

Silver, C. H., Ruff, R.M., Iverson, G.L., Barth, J. T., Broshek, D. K., Bush, S., Koffler, S. P.,
& Reynolds, C. R. (2008). Learning disabilities: the need for neuropsychological
evaluation. Arch Clin Neuropsychol, 23(2), 217–219.
[Link]

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Northridge. Cal.:

Harper Collins.

Talbot, P., Astbury, G., & Mason, T. (2010). Key concepts in learning disabilities. London:
SAGE Publications.

Watson, S. M. R., & Gable, R. A. (2013). Unraveling the complex nature of mathematics
learning disability: ımplications for research and practice. SAGE Learning Disability
Quarterly, 36(3), 178-187. DOI: 10.1177/0731948712461489.

Willcutt, E. G., McGrath, L. M., Pennington, B. F., Keenan, J. M., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R.
K., & Wadsworth, S. J. (2019). Understanding comorbidity between specific learning
disabilities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 165, 91–109.
[Link]

Zahra, J., Jamil, F. & Khalid, R. (2014). Development and preliminary validation of an
indigenous scale for assessment of learning disabilities. Pakistan Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 12(2), 27-37.