bs_bs_banner
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume •• · Number •• · 2012
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01264.x
Assessing dyslexia in higher education:
the York adult assessment battery-revised
Meesha Warmington,1 Susan E. Stothard 2 and Margaret J. Snowling1
1
University of York; 2University of Durham
Key words: Dyslexia adult assessment, higher education, phonological processing.
Although there are a number of standardised
measures to assess dyslexia in children, there are
comparatively fewer instruments suitable for the
assessment of dyslexia in adults. Given the growing
number of students entering UK higher education
institutions, there is a need to develop reliable tools
for assessing the additional needs of those with
dyslexia and related difficulties. This study reports
data from a revised version of the York Adult
Assessment: An Assessment Battery for Dyslexia
Screening in Higher Education. The current York
Adult Assessment-Revised (YAA-R) is an assess-
ment battery consisting of tests of reading, spelling,
writing and phonological skills. Data from a norma-
tive sample of 106 adults without dyslexia and a
validation sample of 20 adults with dyslexia illus-
trate significant group differences on the tests com-
prising the YAA-R. Additionally, the YAA-R has good
discriminatory power yielding 80% sensitivity and
97% specificity. Taken together, the YAA-R is a suit-
able test battery for the assessment and identifi-
cation of dyslexia in university students.
Although there is a longstanding debate about how best to
conceptualise dyslexia (e.g., Stanovich, 1994), the research
consensus is that it is primarily characterised by problems
with the development of effective word-decoding strategies,
low levels of reading fluency and poor spelling performance
[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5); American Psychiatric Association, 2012]. Indi-
viduals who experience such difficulties typically have
underlying difficulties with phonological processing skills
often in the face of adequate working memory performance,
with performance on tests of rapid automatised naming
(RAN) being highly diagnostic (for a review, see Vellutino
et al., 2004). According to the International Dyslexia Asso-
ciation (International Dyslexia Association, 2002), dyslexia
is ‘characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent
word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
abilities . . . [and] typically result from a deficit in the pho-
nological component of language that is often unexpected
in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision
of effective classroom instruction’. Further, according to
this phonological representations hypothesis (see Elbro,
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
••–••
jrs3_1264 1..9
1996), children with dyslexia face difficulties acquiring
grapheme–phoneme correspondence rules because the
phonological boundaries of words (and their constituent
phonemes) represented in lexical memory are not well
specified, and as a result, decoding skills are compromised.
In turn, this affects the development of a ‘sight’ vocabulary.
Importantly, dyslexic difficulties do not resolve but persist
into adulthood (e.g., Bruck, 1990; 1992; Kemp, Parrila and
Kirby, 2009; Pennington et al., 1990). In recent years, a
number of studies have described the cognitive profile of
students with dyslexia (see Swanson and Hsieh, 2009 for
a meta-analysis). Together, the findings of this research
have fed into recommendations regarding the arrangement
such students [said to have Specific Learning Difficulties
(SpLD)] require.
In the UK context, Snowling et al. (1997) compared the
cognitive and phonological processing profile of university
students with and without dyslexia. Despite the modest
sample size, the authors found that university students with
dyslexia in comparison with students without dyslexia were
significantly impaired on measures of phonological pro-
cessing, particularly, non-word reading (effect size 3.64),
spoonerism accuracy (effect size 1.70), phoneme deletion
(effect size 1.90) and phonemic fluency (effect size 1.96). In
a study building on these findings, Hatcher, Snowling and
Griffiths (2002) assessed the performance of university
students with dyslexia on a battery of tests tapping general
cognitive ability (verbal and non-verbal ability), literacy
skills (reading, decoding skills, spelling and writing),
phonological skills (spoonerisms and rapid naming) and
cognitive processing skills (speed of processing and verbal
memory). Despite being equivalent in general cognitive
ability, the students with dyslexia performed poorly, in
comparison with students without dyslexia, on measures of
literacy and phonological processing skills. Furthermore,
these students tended to self-report higher levels of difficul-
ties with memory, attention and organisation. Similar
findings have been reported by Callens, Tops and Brsybaert
(in press) in a large scale study of Dutch-speaking
university students with dyslexia. In this study, although
students with and without dyslexia were comparable in
performance on a test of fluid (non-verbal) intelligence,
those with dyslexia did slightly less well on a verbal ability
test and showed selective deficits in reading and writing
1
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

(effect sizes between d = 1 and d = 2), arithmetic (d ª 1) and able interest from practitioners as well as academic users
phonological processing (d ª 1). In addition, Singleton, (e.g., Illingworth and Bishop, 2009). The York Adult
Horne and Simmons (2009) reported that university stu- Assessment-Revised (YAA-R) is an assessment battery con-
dents with dyslexia performed more poorly than non- sisting of tests of reading, spelling, writing and phonological
dyslexic students not only on measures of phonological skills that provides a screening tool for young adults with
processing (word recognition test) but also on lexical access dyslexia. The battery aims to assess the abilities and compe-
(word construction test) and working memory with an tencies that are required by students who wish to pursue a
average effect size of 1.55. Moreover, in a meta-analysis of course in further or HE and thereby to assist in the identifi-
52 studies, Swanson and Hsieh (2009) found that adults cation of additional needs. The battery provides a learning
without dyslexia performed better than dyslexic adults on profile against which to plan support and will be useful for
measures of naming speed (effect size 0.96), phonological students who wish to apply for examination arrangements
processing, (effect size 0.87), reading (effect size 1.33), and/or a DSA. The YAA-R is administered individually and
spelling (effect size 1.57), verbal memory (effect size 0.62), takes approximately 60 minutes to complete.
writing (effect size 0.72) and vocabulary (effect size 0.71).
Self-esteem is also affected in students with dyslexia (e.g., This paper presents normative data from students attending
Riddick et al., 1999), and this may often be associated with HE institutions in the UK across a number of tasks that
high levels of anxiety (e.g., Carroll and Iles, 2006), particu- assess cognitive, literacy, phonological and writing skills,
larly as regarding their academic writing skills. Together, and comparing them against students with dyslexia.
these findings make it clear that the persisting difficulties
encountered by adults with dyslexia will impact on their Method
study skills and academic performance and thus need to be This study received ethical approval from the Department
appropriately recognised and supported by higher education of Psychology Ethics Committee. Prior to the start of the
(HE) institutions. testing session, participants gave informed consent. All par-
ticipants were students attending UK universities studying a
In the UK, it has been reported that students with dyslexia range of subject areas encompassing the natural sciences,
account for approximately 3.2% of students entering UK social sciences, health and creative arts (see Table 1). All
HE institutions (Higher Education Statistics Agency, were native speakers of English.
2006). However, these reports may be an underestimate
of the actual numbers as the majority of dyslexic students
Participants
(approximately 40–43%) remain undiagnosed until they
Normative sample. One hundred six adults without dys-
have actually started university (National Working Party on
lexia (75 males and 31 females), mean chronological age
Dyslexia, 1999; Singleton, 2004). Additionally, many stu-
21 years, 10 months (range = 18 years, 3 months to 36
dents with dyslexia remain unidentified and unsupported
until their final year of university (e.g., Nichols et al., 2009).
Therefore, there is a recognised need to establish a criterion
against which to identify dyslexia in HE. Indeed, the SpLD Table 1: Participants listed by ethnicity, academic
Working Group (SpLD Working Group 2005/DfES Guide- institution and subject area of study (N = 126)
lines, 2005) specify the need for consistency in screening Adults without Adults with
procedures used in identifying students for disabled stu- dyslexia dyslexia
– (N = 106) (N = 20)
dents allowances (DSA) and that practitioners must utilise
tests standardised with adult populations that examine the Ethnicity
cognitive profile and literacy attainments of students. White 92 20
Asian 11 –
Furthermore, on entry to university, many students with Black 3 –
dyslexia will have received varying degrees of intervention
Academic institution
and have developed a diverse range of compensatory strate-
University of York 71 7
gies during the school-years. It follows that the majority of
such students will not exhibit noticeable difficulties with University of Leeds 13 2
basic literacy skills (e.g., Beaton, McDougall and Singleton, Queen Margaret University 12 1
1997), yet they may still find specific kinds of reading and University of Napier 5 –
writing assignment difficult (e.g., Colombo, Fudio and Other Universities 5 3
Mosna, 2009). It is important in this light to develop sensitive
Sixth Form Colleges – 7
procedures for the assessment of higher level literacy skills
Subject area
as the starting point both for intervention and to provide
appropriate accommodations in educational settings. Natural sciences 19 3
Social sciences 46 4
In this paper, we report data from a revision of the York Adult Health sciences 7 9
Assessment: An Assessment Battery for Dyslexia Screening Arts 28 4
in HE (YAA; Hatcher and Snowling, 2002). The YAA has been
Creative arts 6 –
freely downloadable from 2002 and has generated consider-

2 © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

years, 2 months) recruited via online university advertise-
ments volunteered to take part. The gender ratio of approxi-
mately three males to one female was decided in view of the
reported excess of males with dyslexia.
Validation sample. Twenty adults with dyslexia (16 males
and 4 females), mean chronological age 22 years, 5 months
(range = 15 years, 11 months to 31 years, 1 month) volun-
teered to take part. They were recruited via the Centre for
Reading and Language, Dyslexia Action in York, online
university advertisements, and referrals from dyslexia
tutors at the University of York and York College. Adults
with dyslexia were selected on the basis that they had to
have a formal diagnosis of dyslexia and attained a standard
score of 100 or less on all standardised measures of literacy.
In addition, they had to attain average scores (i.e., 85
and above) on standardised measures of general cognitive
ability. Twenty adults without dyslexia were selected from
the normative sample to be group matched on general cog-
nitive ability with the sample of adults with dyslexia for the
purpose of validation.
Materials
YAA-R assessment protocol.1 Reading. To assess reading
accuracy, reading time, reading rate (expressed as words
per minute) and reading comprehension, participants
were administered a Reading Comprehension test – The
History of Chocolate. The passage was a non-fictional
piece written for the purpose of the study, suitable for uni-
versity students. The passage contained 492 words and 15
comprehension questions that assessed three component
reading comprehension skills (i.e., knowledge = 7 items;
vocabulary = 4 items; and inference-making = 4 items).
Both reading time and reading accuracy (along with
errors) were recorded. Comprehension questions were
scored as correct or incorrect (i.e., maximum reading
comprehension score of 15).
Summarisation skills. To assess students’ ability to sum-
marise what they had read, they were administered the
written précis test. In this test, participants were given a
maximum of 10 minutes to write a summary of The History
of Chocolate once they had completed the comprehension
questions. This test provides measures of summarisation
skills and writing under time pressure. The test was scored
as the number of content points (i.e., knowledge based
points directly referred to in the text and not inference
points) included within the correct context (maximum score
of 20). The content points were determined by first compil-
ing a list of 30 points prior to scoring. We then randomly
selected 15% of the written précis from the normative
sample and compared these responses with the list of 30
content points. The final 20 content points were selected
so that they reflected a range of difficulty [i.e., 38–87%
difficulty; mean accuracy = 12.62, standard deviation
(SD) = 3.24] in the responses from the 15% of the written
1
The YAA-R assessment protocol, record form and normative data are available
from http://www.york.ac.uk/media/psychology/crl/documents/York%20Adult%20
Assessment%20Battery%20RevisedForm%20and%20Test.pdf
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
précis selected. Points were scored as correct regardless
of spelling errors, except for the distinction between cacao
beans and cocoa butter. Writing rate was expressed as
words per minute. Participants were not allowed to refer
back to the text.
Spelling. To assess spelling, we computed a spelling rate
score on the written précis test (i.e., the number of errors
divided by the number of written words expressed as a
percentage).
Phonological processing. To assess phonological skills,
participants were administered a test requiring explicit
phoneme awareness and manipulation (spoonerisms) and
two test of phonological retrieval and processing (RAN
digits and objects) tests. For spoonerisms, participants
heard the name of a famous person and had to swap the
beginning sounds of the first and last name to make two
novel words (e.g., Wayne Rooney becomes Rayne Wooney).
The spoonerisms test contained 12 items, and total accuracy
was scored out of 24 (i.e., 2 words per target item). Spoo-
nerism rate was calculated for correct items only (i.e., score
of 2), expressed as seconds per item (timing began at the
offset of the experimenter saying the item and ended when
the participant completed their response). Two practice
items preceded the test items. For RAN, participants had to
name an array of 50 objects and digits from left to right
arranged in 10 rows, as quickly and accurately as possible.
Each task began with a practice trial that allowed partici-
pants to become familiar with the items. Both naming time
(along with rate expressed as words per second) and errors
were recorded.
Speed of writing. As an additional measure of writing
speed, participants were administered tests of handwriting
and typing speed. For the handwriting speed test, partici-
pants copied the following sentence Erosion is a gravity
driven process that moves solids in the environment as many
times as possible in 2 minutes. For the typing speed test,
participants had to use a word processor to type the following
sentence Transportation is movement of people and goods
from one location to another as many times as possible in 2
minutes. In both tests speed was emphasised. Handwriting
rate and typing rate were expressed as words per minute.
Standardised measures. In addition to the YAA-R, partici-
pants were administered measures of cognitive ability [i.e.,
vocabulary and block designs tests from Wechsler Abbrevi-
ated Scale of Intelligence (WASI); Wechsler, 1999] and lit-
eracy [i.e., reading and spelling tests from Wide Range
Achievement Test – Third Edition (WRAT-3); Wilkinson,
1993]. All participants also completed The Brown Attention
Deficit Disorder Scales (Brown ADD; Brown, 1996). The
Brown ADD Scales is a 40-item self-report scale that mea-
sures symptoms of attention-deficit disorders and classifies
them into five components – activation: organising and
activation to work; Attention: sustaining attention and
concentration; effort: sustaining energy and effort; affect:
managing affective interference; and memory: utilising
memory and accessing recall. In interpreting the scores
3
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

for individual components, a T-score of 65 (equal to 1.5 SDs
above the non-clinical mean) and above are considered to
indicate a clinically significant degree of difficulty.
Procedure
The tasks were individually administered in a single session
lasting approximately 90 minutes. Participants were first
administered the standardised measures followed by the
YAA-R in the following order: WASI vocabulary and block
designs tests; WRAT-3 reading and spelling tests; Brown
ADD; Reading Comprehension – The History of Chocolate;
written précis, spoonerisms; RAN; and handwriting speed
and typing speed. The rationale for ordering the tasks was to
ensure that the more time demanding tasks were completed
earlier in the session. We acknowledge that this is a long
testing session, and some participants may have been
affected by fatigue. However, we felt it important to keep
testing conditions similar to those which students would
encounter in an assessment that typically involves the
individual sitting through a relatively lengthy test session;
furthermore, they were always provided with the opportu-
nity to take a short break if they needed one.

Table 2: Means (standard deviations and range) and reliabilities for measures for the normative sample (N = 106)
– Mean SD Range Reliability coefficient
WRAT-3 reading (SS) 109.13 7.83 84–125 0.92a
WRAT-3 reading (RS) 50.56 3.75 39–57
WRAT-3 spelling (SS) 110.45 7.44 86–129 93a
WRAT-3 spelling (RS) 46.11 3.41 35–55
WASI
Vocabulary (T-score) 56.64 7.31 39–73 0.94c
Block design (T-score) 58.25 7.81 28–69 0.92c
Vocabulary (raw score) 60.83 6.13 44–74
Block design (raw score) 56.11 11.39 12–71
Brown ADD (total) 57.21 10.50 50–95 0.87d
Activation (T-score) 56.28 9.04 50–87
Attention (T-score) 59.69 11.24 50–91
Effort (T-score) 56.18 10.41 50–96
Affect (T-score) 53.97 8.41 50–98
Memory (T-score) 56.88 10.29 50–85
YAA-R reading comprehension
Comprehension (maximum = 15) 9.74 2.30 4–15 0.53b
Reading accuracy (maximum = 492) 486.33 4.69 463–492 0.81b
Reading time (second) 182.77 24.20 143–263
Reading rate (words/minute) 164.15 20.39 112–206
YAA-R written précis
Content (maximum = 20) 12.55 3.59 3–20
Précis time (second) 428.21 130.41 117–610
Précis rate (words/minute) 21.80 4.09 9.90–30.84
Spelling error rate (%) 1.89 2.04 0.00–13.70
YAA-R spoonerisms
Accuracy (maximum = 24) 21.89 2.97 9–24 0.76b
Total time (second) 45.22 37.65 14–249
Rate (second/item) 1.76 1.36 0.58–13
YAA-R RAN rate (words/second)
Digits 3.24 0.73 1.37–5.41
Objects 1.88 0.35 1.17–2.54
YAA-R writing speed – rate (words/second)
Handwriting 31.09 4.41 22–42
Typing 45.06 14.79 21.50–89

Note: aAlternate form reliability; bCronbach a; cSplit-half reliability; dTest–retest reliability.

SS, standard scores; RS, raw scores.

4 © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

Results

Table 3: Correlations between standardised measures of literacy and vocabulary, and YAA-R measures of reading and phonological processing for the normative sample

-0.38**
0.39**

0.57**
0.23*

-0.25*
-0.24*
Normative sample performance on the YAA-R and

0.03
0.05
0.09
0.02
-0.01

0.04
13
standardised measures
Descriptive statistics for the performance of the normative
sample on all measures (i.e., standardised and YAA-R) are

-0.32**
0.35**
shown in Table 2 together with the data pertaining to the

0.03
0.13
-0.07
-0.05
-0.04

0.09
-0.10
-0.03
-0.01
12
reliability2 of each measure. As to be expected from a uni-
versity sample, performance on the standardised measures
of literacy was at the upper end of the average range, in

-0.43**
-0.36**
-0.32**
0.26**
-0.46**
0.54**
-0.49**
-0.38**
-0.70**
-0.49**
line with their general cognitive ability (as measured by the

11
WASI).

With the exception of the comprehension test (Cronbach a

-0.44**
-0.39**
-0.29**
0.25**
-0.43**
0.53**
-0.49**
-0.36**
-0.75**
0.53), reliability estimates for the YAA-R were generally

10
good (ranging from 0.71 to 0.95). The relatively low reli-
ability for the comprehension test is not surprising as reli-
ability estimates are typically lower for comprehension

0.47**
0.30**
0.28**
-0.27**
0.42**
-0.28**
0.26**
0.34**
than reading accuracy (see Snowling et al., 2009). Addition-

9
ally, this low reliability can be accounted for by the small
number of items and the heterogeneity of the constructs
tapped by the comprehension test (see Nunnally and

0.24**
0.40**
0.48**

0.35**
-0.32**
0.31**
-0.22*
Bernstein, 1994; Streiner, 2003).

Correlational analyses. To assess the validity of the YAA-R 8

measures as concurrent predictors of reading, we ran cor- 0.41**
0.36**

-0.26**
0.41**
-0.98**
0.24*
relations between the different measures (see Table 3). Cor-
7

relations between the standardised measures of literacy and

vocabulary correlated moderately and significantly with
each other. With the exception of RAN rate, all YAA-R
-0.40**
-0.34**
-0.25**
0.26**
-0.46**
measures correlated moderately with the standardised mea-
6

sures. Correlations between YAA-R measures ranged from

weak to high.
0.55**
0.36**
0.39**
-0.28**

Comparison between the adults with dyslexia and

5

adults without dyslexia

Prior to analysis, 20 adults without dyslexia were selected
from the normative sample to be compared with the adults
0.40**
-0.52**
-0.13

with dyslexia. These 20 participants were selected on the

4

basis that they attained scores of 100 or more on all stan-

dardised measures of literacy. Additionally, in selecting
these participants, we ensured that their average group
0.51**
0.35**
3

performance on standardised measures of general cognitive

ability was matched with group average performance of the
adults with dyslexia. Groups were not matched on any other
0.47**

criteria (e.g., gender).

2

The performance of the adults with dyslexia and non-

dyslexic adults (and group differences with effect sizes) on
1

all measures are shown in Table 4. Results of a multivariate

analysis of variance showed that adults with dyslexia were
8. YAA-R reading comprehension

10. YAA-R spoonerism total time

significantly impaired on standardised measures of literacy

9. YAA-R spoonerism accuracy
4. YAA-R spelling error rate

(as measured by the WRAT-3 reading and spelling tests).

5. YAA-R reading accuracy

13. YAA-R RAN object rate

11. YAA-R spoonerism rate
12. YAA-R RAN digit rate

Moreover, adults with dyslexia performed significantly

6. YAA-R reading time
7. YAA-R reading rate
3. WASI vocabulary

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

worse on the YAA-R measures in comparison with adults

2. WRAT spelling
1. WRAT reading

without dyslexia with the exception of précis time, spoo-

nerism rate and RAN object rate.
(N = 106)

2
Reliability for précis rate, précis time, spelling error rate, spoonerism rate, reading
rate and reading time could not be calculated as these constructs only yielded a single
–

score for each participant.

© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN 5
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

Table 4: Means (and standard deviations) for all measures for adults without dyslexia and adults with dyslexia with
group differences (MANOVA) and effect size (Cohen’s d) (N = 40)
Adults without dyslexia Adults with dyslexia Effect size
– (N = 20) (N = 20) MANOVA (Cohen’s d)
WRAT-3 reading (SS) 108.80 (7.07) 93.65 (10.32) F(1,38) = 29.33, P < 0.001 1.76
WRAT-3 spelling (SS) 109.70 (6.31) 92.35 (11.37) F(1,38) = 35.60, P < 0.001 1.94
WASI
Vocabulary (T-score) 54.30 (6.17) 49.60 (10.50) F(1,38) = 2.97, P = 0.09 0.56
Block design (T-score) 59.55 (8.23) 59.60 (6.71) F(1,38) = 0.00, P = 0.98 0.01
Brown ADD (Total) 55.55 (7.79) 72.00 (13.45) F(1,38) = 22.36, P < 0.001 1.54
Activation (T-score) 57.00 (8.41) 69.25 (13.34) F(1,38) = 12.06, P = 0.001 1.13
Attention (T-score) 60.05 (11.45) 71.00 (11.47) F(1,38) = 9.12, P = 0.004 0.98
Effort (T-score) 55.40 (8.25) 67.80 (15.07) F(1,38) = 10.41, P = 0.003 1.05
Affect (T-score) 50.65 (2.60) 62.05 (12.03) F(1,38) = 17.43, P < 0.001 1.34
Memory (T-score) 54.40 (6.85) 72.60 (12.32) F(1,38) = 33.32, P < 0.001 1.87
YAA-R reading comprehension
Comprehension (maximum = 15) 11.05 (2.14) 9.40 (2.64) F(1,38) = 4.71, P = 0.03 0.70
Reading accuracy (maximum = 492) 486.30 (5.08) 476.15 (10.91) F(1,38) = 14.22, P < 0.001 1.22
Reading time (second) 182.28 (22.41) 235.94 (42.94) F(1,38) = 24.56, P < 0.001 1.61
Reading rate (words/minute) 162.27 (19.99) 128.98 (22.85) F(1,38) = 27.02, P < 0.001 1.59
YAA-R written précis
Content (maximum = 20) 15.45 (3.47) 11.80 (2.96) F(1,38) = 12.78, P = 0.001 1.16
Précis time (second) 413.73 (132.05) 450.61 (129.62) F(1,38) = 0.79, P = 0.38 0.29
Précis rate (words/min) 23.74 (4.51) 19.49 (4.62) F(1,38) = 8.66, P = 0.006 0.96
Spelling error rate (%) 1.51 (2.14) 6.49 (4.28) F(1,38) = 21.63, P < 0.001 1.51
YAA-R spoonerisms
Accuracy (maximum = 24) 21.95 (3.10) 18.30 (5.77) F(1,38) = 6.19, P = 0.02 0.81
Total time (second) 34.33 (15.74) 56.01 (35.05) F(1,38) = 6.36, P = 0.01 0.82
Rate (second/item) 4.37 (13.45) 5.29 (9.59) F(1,38) = 0.06, P = 0.80 0.08
YAA-R RAN rate (words/second)
Digits 3.24 (0.91) 2.51 (0.60) F(1,38) = 9.03, P = 0.005 0.96
Objects 2.52 (2.84) 1.58 (0.26) F(1,38) = 2.18, P = 0.15 0.48
YAA-R writing speed – rate (words/second)
Handwriting 31.42 (4.20) 27.02 (4.34) F(1,38) = 10.61, P = 0.002 1.06
Typing 43.52 (15.15) 33.45 (11.05) F(1,38) = 5.77, P = 0.02 0.78

Note. SS, standard scores; MANOVA, multivariate analysis of variance.

Discriminant analyses sizes as a guide, we selected the most discriminating tests

To further examine the discriminatory power of the YAA-R
in distinguishing dyslexics from non-dyslexics, we con-
ducted a logistic regression analysis with all participants
(i.e., 106 adults without dyslexia and 20 adults with dys-
lexia). In this analysis, we entered all YAA-R variables
together in a single block. As Table 5 shows, the YAA-R
had an overall classification rate of 94% (false positive rate
= 15.78%; false negative rate = 3.73%).
Additionally, we were interested in identifying the
minimum number of tasks from the YAA-R sufficient for
discriminating individuals with dyslexia from individuals
without dyslexia. Thus, we conducted a further series of
logistic regression analyses. As before, we included all par-
ticipants in these analyses. Using the values of the effect
and used them to obtain a measure of their discrimina-
tive power. We began by entering literacy – reading time,
reading rate, reading accuracy and spelling error rate – as
the only predictor. These variables were entered together in
a single block for analysis. As Table 5 shows, using literacy
measures resulted in an overall classification rate of 93%
(false positive rate = 13.3%; false negative rate = 6.31%).
Adding, phonological awareness – RAN digits, spoonerism
accuracy, spoonerism rate and spoonerism time – to this
model led to an overall classification of 95% (false positive
rate = 6.25%; false negative rate = 4.54%; see Table 5).
Discussion
The findings reported in this paper confirm that students
with dyslexia in HE continue to experience difficulties with

6 © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN

Table 5: Prediction of dyslexia from YAA-R measures (N = 126)
– Observed
All YAA-R variables Non-dyslexic
Dyslexic
Overall %
YAA-R literacy variables Non-dyslexic
Dyslexic
Overall %
YAA-R literacy and phonological Non-dyslexic
awareness variables Dyslexic
Overall %
Note: The columns labelled group are the two predicted values of the dependent variable, while the rows labelled non-dyslexic and dyslexic are the two
observed (actual) values of the dependent variable (i.e., non-dyslexics = 106, dyslexics = 20).
reading, spelling, phonological processing and writing.
They also tend to self-report difficulties with aspects of
memory, activation, attention, effort and affect. These find-
ings are consistent with those of Hatcher et al. (2002) and a
number of other studies (e.g., Hanley, 1997; Singleton
et al., 2009) that demonstrate that dyslexia is not readily
compensated for in adulthood.
Additionally, the findings reported here illustrate that
despite people with dyslexia having general cognitive abili-
ties that fall within the average range, they nevertheless
struggle with tasks that place constraints on their phono-
logical processing skills. Indeed, our data showed that their
written summarisation skills are significantly below those
of typical adults. Typical adults achieved an overall accu-
racy of 71% on the written précis task, whereas adults with
dyslexia attained an accuracy of 60%. Furthermore, their
text reading rate, spelling rate and reading comprehension
skills are impaired in comparison with the non-dyslexic
adults. It is important to note that these skills are funda-
mental generic skills, which it can be assumed every under-
graduate student must have to successfully pursue a degree
programme. It therefore comes as no surprise that students
with dyslexia are more likely to withdraw from university
studies and are more likely than their non-dyslexic peers to
attain poorer degree classes (e.g., Richardson and Wydell,
2003). It is thus essential to develop an assessment protocol
that accurately assesses these skills to implement amelio-
ration strategies that will ensure that they achieve their
academic potential.
The tests comprising the YAA-R provide a suitable assess-
ment protocol for identifying students with dyslexia. The
battery is comprehensive, yet easy to administer and is
therefore cost-effective. Moreover, the YAA-R taps skills
that require complex literacy processing, such as reading a
passage, being able to understand it, remember it and then
convey the main points in a coherent written form. Thus, the
battery not only adapts standard commonly used methods
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
Predicted
Group
Non-dyslexic Dyslexic % Correct
103 3 97.2
4 16 80
94.4
104 2 98.1
7 13 65.1
92.9
105 1 99.1
5 15 75
95.2
of assessing phonological processing and literacy skills but
also takes into account skills that are generally used in the
learning environment.
The tests have good reliability, and adults with dyslexia
show significant impairment in comparison with adults
without dyslexia on all tasks (except précis time and rate
scores in the spoonerism and RAN objects tasks). Further-
more, the YAA-R has good discriminatory power as indi-
cated by the d effect size, and the sensitivity (80% of true
cases correctly identified) and specificity (97% percentage
of false cases correctly identified) rates. Indeed, the high
sensitivity of the YAA-R in discriminating between groups
is consistent with levels indicated as sufficient for a test
battery to assess dyslexia in the literature (see Glascoe and
Byrne, 1993; Singleton et al., 2009). Furthermore, using
just four of the tests – reading comprehension (specifically,
reading accuracy, time and rate), written précis (specifically
spelling error rate), RAN digits and spoonerisms – yielded
75% sensitivity and 99% specificity. The battery can thus be
administered in full form or in short form. This aspect of the
YAA-R is particularly useful for dyslexia support tutors who
need to quickly assess and identify students who may need
to be referred for further diagnostic assessment.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by a vacation grant from the
Department of Psychology and by the Centre for Reading
and Language, University of York. Maggie Snowling is
funded by a Wellcome Trust programme grant. The authors
are grateful to the students who participated in this study
and thank Feng Wang and Felicity Saunders for their
significant role in recruiting participants, data collection,
data entry and analysis. We also thank Paula Clarke for
her assistance with recruiting participants. We are grateful
to Prerna Menon, Alex Knight, Samantha Tan, Matilda
Ohlsson and Louise Cotton for research assistance.
7
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
Address for correspondence
Meesha Warmington,
Department of Psychology,
University of York,
Heslington,
York Y010 5DD,
UK.
Email: meesha.warmington@york.ac.uk.
References
American Psychiatric Society (2012) ‘Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).’
<http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx> (accessed
18 December 2011).
Beaton, A. A., McDougall, S. & Singleton, C. (1997)
‘Humpty Dumpty grows up? Diagnosing dyslexia in
adults.’ Journal of Research in Reading, 20, pp. 1–6.
Brown, T. E. (1996) Brown Attention-Deficit Disorder
Scales. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Bruck, M. (1990) ‘Word recognition skills of adults with
childhood diagnoses of dyslexia.’ Developmental
Psychology, 26, pp. 439–54.
Bruck, M. (1992) ‘Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological
awareness deficits.’ Developmental Psychology, 28,
pp. 874–86.
Callens, M., Tops, W. & Brysbaert, M. (in press)
Cognitive profile of students who enter higher
education with an indication of dyslexia. PLoS One.
Carroll, J. M. & Iles, J. E. (2006) ‘An assessment of
anxiety levels in dyslexic students in higher
education.’ British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, pp. 651–62.
Colombo, L., Fudio, S. & Mosna, G. (2009)
‘Phonological and working memory mechanisms
involved in written spelling.’ European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 21, pp. 837–61.
Elbro, C. (1996) ‘Early linguistic abilities and reading
development: a review and a hypothesis.’ Reading and
Writing, 8, pp. 453–85.
Glascoe, F. P. & Byrne, K. E. (1993) ‘The accuracy of
three developmental screening tests.’ Journal of Early
Intervention, 17, pp. 368–79.
Hanley, J. R. (1997) ‘Reading and spelling impairments
in undergraduate students with developmental
dyslexia.’ Journal of Research in Reading, 20,
pp. 22–30.
Hatcher, J. & Snowling, M. J. (2002) York Adult
Assessment Battery: An Assessment Battery for
Screening Dyslexia in Higher Education. Centre for
Reading and Language. Department of Psychology,
University of York..
Hatcher, J., Snowling, M. J. & Griffiths, Y. M. (2002)
‘Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher
education.’ British Journal of Educational Psychology,
72, pp. 119–33.
8 © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2006) ‘Students in
Higher Education Institutions 2004/2005.’ <http://
www.hesa.ac.uk/home.htm> (accessed 19 December
2011).
Illingworth, S. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2009) ‘Atypical
cerebral lateralisation in adults with compensated
developmental dyslexia demonstrated using functional
transcranial Doppler ultrasound.’ Brain and Language,
111, pp. 61–5.
International Dyslexia Association (2002) ‘What is
dyslexia?’ <http://www.interdys.org/FAQWhatIs.htm>
(accessed 18 December 2011).
Kemp, N., Parrila, R. K. & Kirby, J. R. (2009)
‘Phonological and orthographic spelling in
high-functioning adult dyslexics.’ Dyslexia, 15,
pp. 105–28.
National Working Party on Dyslexia (1999) Dyslexia in
Higher Education: Policy, Provision and Practice.
Hull, UK: Psychology Department, University of Hull.
Nichols, S., McLeod, J., Holder, R. & McLeod, H. (2009)
‘Screening for dyslexia, dyspraxia and Meares–Irlen
Syndrome in Higher Education.’ Dyslexia, 15,
pp. 42–60.
Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, L. (1994) Psychometric Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill Higher.
Pennington, B. R., Van Orden, G. C., Smith, S. D., Green,
P. A. & Haith, M. M. (1990) ‘Phonological processing
skills and deficits in adult dyslexics.’ Child
Development, 61, pp. 1753–78.
Richardson, J. T. E. & Wydell, T. N. (2003) ‘The
representation and attainment of students with
dyslexia in UK higher education.’ Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16,
pp. 475–503.
Riddick, B., Sterling, C., Farmer, M. & Morgan, S.
(1999) ‘Self-esteem and anxiety in the educational
histories of adult dyslexic students.’ Dyslexia, 5,
pp. 227–48.
Singleton, C. (2004) ‘Using computer-based assessment
to identify learning problems.’ In L. Florian &
J. Hegarty (eds), ICT and Special Educational Needs,
pp. 46–63. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University
Press.
Singleton, C., Horne, J. & Simmons, F. (2009)
‘Computerised screening for dyslexia in adults.’
Journal of Research in Reading, 32, pp.
137–52.
Snowling, M. J., Nation, K., Moxham, P., Gallagher,
A. & Frith, U. (1997) ‘Phonological processing
deficits in dyslexic students: a preliminary
account.’ Journal of Research in Reading, 20,
pp. 31–4.
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P.,
Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., Nation, K.,
Truelove, E. & Hulme, C. (2009) York Assessment
of Reading for Comprehension. London, UK:
GL Assessment.
SpLD Working Group 2005/DfES Guidelines (2005)
‘Assessment of Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Dyscalculia
and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) in Higher

Education.’ <http://www.patoss-dyslexia.org/
downloads/SpLD%20Working%20Group%20
2005%20-%20DfES%20Guidelines.pdf> (accessed
19 December 2011).
Stanovich, K. E. (1994) ‘Annotation: does dyslexia exist?
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35,
pp. 579–95.
Streiner, D. (2003) ‘Starting at the beginning: an
introduction to coefficient alpha and internal
consistency.’ Journal of Personality Assessment,
80, pp. 99–103.
Swanson, H. L. & Hsieh, C. J. (2009) ‘Reading
disabilities in adults: a selective meta-analysis of
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2012 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••
the literature.’ Review of Educational Research, 79,
pp. 1362–90.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J. &
Scanlon, D. M. (2004) ‘Specific reading disability
(dyslexia): what have we learned in the past
four decades? Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45,
pp. 2–40.
Wechsler, D. (1999) Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of
Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993) The Wide Range Achievement
Test. (3rd edn). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range Inc.
9