ArticleJournal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry2025
Validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test for Diagnosis of Specific Reading or Mathematical Disorders.
Article in Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to verify the diagnostic validity of the Comprehensive Learning Test (CLT) for children and adolescents with reading (RD) or mathematical disorders (MD). Methods: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of the CLT-Reading (CLT-R) and CLT-Math (CLT-M), a total of 284 participants (142 in RD and 142 in the control group) and 184 participants (92 in MD and 92 in the control group) were recruited, respectively. The control groups were selected through one-to-one matching based on sex and grade. For the CLT-R, three criteria were established using accuracy and fluency measures (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline, and one impairment or two borderline scores). Two criteria were established for the CLT-M (one impairment, one impairment or one borderline score). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each criterion. Results: In the CLT-R, when no impairment or borderline score presented in accuracy, applying the fluency criterion of "one impairment or one borderline score" yielded the highest diagnostic validity for RD, with a sensitivity of 0.963 and an NPV of 0.991. In the CLT-M, when no impairment or borderline score in accuracy, was present applying the fluency criterion of "impairment or borderline" resulted in the highest diagnostic validity for MD, with a sensitivity of 0.814 and specificity of 0.966. Conclusion: These findings support that the CLT-R and CLT-M are highly valid tools for diagnosing RD and MD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.