[Clinical diagnostic practices for Chinese developmental dyslexia].

ABSTRACT

Objective: To explore the optimization of the standardized assessment tool for clinical diagnosis of Chinese developmental dyslexia (DD). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from May to December 2023, in which 130 primary school children in grades 1 to 3 with clinical signs of literacy lag and positive screening results on the screening scales were recruited from the outpatient clinic of Child Health Care Medical Division, Shanghai Children's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Chinese dyslexia screening behavior checklist for primary students (CDSBC) was used as the screening scales, and supplemented by dyslexia checklist for Chinese children. Referring to the standard procedure of the"expert advice on diagnosis and intervention of Chinese developmental dyslexia", the developmental dyslexia scale for standard mandarin (DDSSM) was used to evaluate the children's literacy-related cognitive abilities and conduct the diagnostic assessment, and divided the children into learning backward group and the DD group. The t-test and χ2 test were used to compare the differences in the distribution of intelligence, literacy and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder between the two groups. Spearman's correlation was used to analyze the correlation between the scores for each cognitive ability in the DDSSM and the CDSBC. Results: Of the 130 children, 90 were male, aged (8.3±1.0) years; 40 were female, aged (8.1±0.9) years. A final diagnosis of DD was made in 59 cases, of which 41 were males. There was no statistically significant difference in operational intelligence quotient (101±15 vs.100±15, t=0.53, P>0.05) and statistically significant difference in literacy of DDSSM (32±5 vs.21±4, t=11.56, P<0.001) between the learning backward group and the DD group. Eighteen cases (25.4%) of the learning backward group were children with attention deficit subtype attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD-I), and 16 cases (27.1%) in DD group, the difference in incidence between the two groups was not statistically significant (χ2=0.05, P>0.05). There were correlations between the DDSSM (for oral vocabulary, morphological awareness and orthographic awareness) and the CDSBC total score (r=-0.42, -0.32, -0.35, all P<0.01), but the correlations for visuospatial perception and rapid automatized naming with CDSBC total score were not statistically significant (r=-0.09 and -0.20,both P>0.05). Conclusion: For literacy-related cognitive abilities, screening scales CDSBC are not sufficiently useful for assessment, so the introduction of standardized assessment tools DDSSM is an optimization of the clinical diagnosis of Chinese DD, which is crucial for achieving accurate diagnosis and intervention.