Chris Dixon- Doctor of Psychology
- Research Associate at University of Leeds
Chris Dixon
- Doctor of Psychology
- Research Associate at University of Leeds
Research Associate on the DART project at the University of Leeds (2019-2022)
About
6
Publications
16,461
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
74
Citations
Introduction
I'm a mixed methods researcher with broad interests in children's language and literacy skills; particularly their development, assessment, and intervention. From 2019 to 2022 I worked as a Research Fellow at the University of Leeds on the Dynamic Assessment of Reading Test (DART) project which aimed to assess to what extent the prediction of children's future reading difficulties can be improved using measures of learning potential.
Current institution
Additional affiliations
January 2019 - present
September 2017 - December 2018
Education
September 2014 - March 2018
September 2012 - August 2013
October 2008 - July 2011
Publications
Publications (6)
The Poor Comprehender (PC) reading profile is characterised by difficulty comprehending text despite age-appropriate decoding skills. Risk for this profile is typically identified through static screening instruments measuring pre-existing knowledge, which may produce biased estimates for culturally and linguistically diverse children. In contrast,...
Traditional static tests of reading and reading-related skills offer some ability to predict future reading performance, though such screeners may misclassify children with or at risk of reading disorder (RD). Dynamic assessment (DA) is an alternative approach which measures learning potential and may be less dependent on learning background. A sys...
Assessments of reading and reading-related skills which measure acquired knowledge may pose problems for the prediction of future reading performance. Such static measures often result in floor effects in the early stages of reading instruction , and may be particularly inaccurate predictors for children from culturally and linguistically diverse (...
Children learning English as an additional language (EAL) are a diverse and growing group of pupils in England’s schools. Relative to their monolingual (ML) peers, these children tend to show lower receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge in English, although interpretation of findings is limited by small and heterogeneous samples. In an effor...
Children learning English as an additional language (EAL) are a growing population of learners in English primary schools. These children begin school with differing levels of English language proficiency and tend to underperform in relation to their non‐EAL peers on measures of English oral language and reading. However, little work has examined t...
Many children learning English as an Additional Language (EAL) possess lower levels of English vocabulary knowledge relative to their non-EAL English-speaking peers. Longitudinal work suggests that this group discrepancy does not decrease markedly over time as a result of regular classroom teaching. Twelve EAL learners with English vocabulary weakn...
Questions
Questions (3)
Hi,
I'm using the lme4 package in R to run fairly simple linear mixed effects models. I'm unsure about how to report confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed effects estimates. I know that CIs can be extracted with confint.merMod(model) and that there are 3 methods available for this: profile, Wald, and boot. I have read in Bates et al (2015) () that the three methods produce similar results, but I get an error message with the profile method for some models, but not others. I am yet to find a published article that explicitly states which method was used to compute CIs, so I'm assuming most people go with the default 'profile' method, but ideally I would like to know what each method implies. I can't find anything online, so it would be great to hear from anyone who has run such models and reported CIs (which method did you use and why? did you specify the method?). Reference to relevant resources would also be welcome.
Thanks, any help appreciated!
Chris
Hi everyone,
I'm a frequent user of the BPVS-3 (for measuring vocabulary development in children), but a number of older studies report using the previous version, BPVS-2. It's stated in the BPVS-3 manual that there are some significant differences between the two (e.g. BPVS-2 has black and white illustrations, while BPVS-3 uses colour). Sadly, the BPVS-3 manual doesn't provide any information about the relationship between the two versions. Does anyone know of any studies or technical reports where I could find this information? (Or generally any information pertaining to the reliability/validity of the BPVS?)
Thanks,
Chris
In their paper, Coltheart et al. (2001) state that the lexical route comprises 2 paths: lexical nonsemantic and lexical semantic. They say that the lexical semantic route has not yet been implemented.
Does anyone know if it has been implemented as of 2015?
