87 indicates that the ADCL scale's internal consistency is acceptable.
Table 1 presents demographic variables and the scores on the ADCL for N= 600.
Correlations between Self-perceived Difficulties and the ADCL Score Self-reports Reading Writing ADCL-sum ADCL-12 difficulties difficulties Reading - difficulties Writing .
To reveal the dimensions of the ADCL, an EFA was conducted.
In this study the prisoners' ADCL scores will be compared to their achieved scores on the standardized reading and spelling test to assess if the screening instrument ADCL is able to predict reading and spelling skills as measured with a standardized test battery of reading and spelling.
The predictive validity of the ADCL was next analysed by correlating the factors derived from the factor solution, with the sum score of the sub-tests in the standardized reading and spelling test.
Table 5 presents demographic variables, scores on the ADCL and the reading and spelling test.
The correlations between participants' self-report on the ADCL and their objectively measured reading and spelling skills on the standardized reading and spelling test were low.
However, the analysis showed that the questions regarding self-perceived reading and writing difficulties shared considerably more of the variance with participants' performance on the standardized reading and spelling tests than did the ADCL.
In order to examine whether the ADCL could predict scores on the standardized test the three factors derived from the factor analysis in study 1 were correlated with the sum scores of the standardized reading and spelling tests.
Furthermore, the participants were consistent in reporting deficits: Scores on the ADCL and ratings of self-perceived difficulties correlated highly.
An EFA of the Norwegian ADCL revealed three distinct factors.