The Indian Journal of Pediatrics (February 2020) 87(2):94–98

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-019-03130-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Children ‘At Risk’ of Developing Specific Learning Disability

in Primary Schools
Sri Lakshmi Chordia 1 & Kanimozhi Thandapani 1 & Arulkumaran Arunagirinathan 1

Received: 22 June 2019 / Accepted: 19 November 2019 / Published online: 21 December 2019
# Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2019

Abstract
Objectives To study the proportion of children of age 5 to 7 y at risk of specific learning disability (SLD) and to analyse the socio-
demographic risk factors.
Methods A school based cross-sectional study was conducted in six schools in Puducherry. Four hundred eighty students were
enrolled and study was conducted in a triphasic approach. Phase I- Screening by teachers using SLD-SQ (Specific Leaning
Disability – Screening Questionnaire); Phase II- Vision, hearing, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) assessment were done in students
screened positive with SLD-SQ and those with vision or hearing impairment and subnormal intelligence were excluded; Phase III-
Remaining children were subjected to NIMHANS SLD index (Level I profile).
Results Of the 480 enrolled students 109 were screened positive with SLD-SQ. Twelve students were excluded in Phase II. Remaining
97 evaluated were evaluated with NIMHANS SLD index and 36 (7.5%) were screened positive. Boys (9.6%) were significantly more
affected than girls (4.9%). Similarly, risk was significantly higher in students of government schools (12.1%) than private schools (2.2%).
Ignoring punctuation and capitals was the commonest problem in SLD-SQ whereas, dysgraphia was most common in NIMHANS index.
Conclusions The present study shows though SLD is highly prevalent and remains undiagnosed due to lack of awareness among
teachers and parents. Since early intervention leads to better outcomes, Universal screening should be made mandatory and
remedial teaching centres made available, accessible and economical.

Keywords Learning disability . Dyslexia . Remedial teaching . Children

Introduction If learning disability goes undetected, child’s poor scho-

Specific learning disability (SLD) is a neurodevelopmental
disorder that impedes the ability to learn or use specific
academic skills (e.g., reading, writing and arithmetic),
which is the foundation of other academic learning. The
learning difficulties are ‘unexpected’ in that other aspects
of development seem to be fine [1].
The prevalence of SLD in India ranges from 1.6%–15%
[2–5]. Exact etiology is not known but it is believed to be
predisposed by neurological impairment through genetic
transmission, developmental anomalies, perinatal insult or
malnutrition [6].
lastic performance will bring in adverse impact on heath
related quality of life by causing poor self-esteem, disturbed
peer and family relationships, and unease social interactions
[7]. Unfortunately, in India many children remain undiag-
nosed because of lack of awareness among teachers, parents
and health staffs [8]. Also there is no standardized screening
protocol favouring early diagnosis or provisions for acces-
sible consistent remedial teaching for intervention. Hence
the present study was conducted in primary schools in
Puducherry to find out proportion of children of age 5–7 y
‘at risk’ of developing specific learning disabilities and to
analyse the socio-demographic risk factors.

* Kanimozhi Thandapani Material and Methods

drkani88@gmail.com
This school based cross-sectional study was conducted in
1
Department of Pediatrics, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College six schools in Puducherry. Fourteen schools were located
and Hospital, Puducherry 605107, India within 5 km radius from the authors’ tertiary care centre. By
Indian J Pediatr (February 2020) 87(2):94–98
adopting lottery method of simple random sampling, 6
schools were selected. Sample size was calculated as 480
taking prevalence of SLD as 10% [9], confidence interval
95%, absolute precision 3% and 20% non-response rate.
After obtaining clearance from Institutional Ethics
Committee and permission from Deputy Director of
School Education, the study was initiated. All students of
age 5 to 7 y from the selected schools whose parents
consented were included in the study.
The study was conducted with a tri-phasic approach:
Phase I – Socio-demographic details of all students were
collected. Socio economic status was classified using
Modified B.G. Prasad classification (2018) [10]. Specific
learning disabilities – screening questionnaire (SLD-SQ)
was administered on all the enrolled students with the
help of the teachers. SLD-SQ was designed and standard-
ized by Dr. Uday K Sinha at Institution of Human
Behaviour and Allied Sciences, copyrighted at 2015 by
psychomatrix; permission for its use was obtained from
the author. A cut-off score of four or more was considered
indicative of possibility of SLD. Sensitivity and specific-
ity of questionnaire is 0.83 and 0.77 respectively for a
cut-off of four [11].
Phase II – Children screened positive with SLD-SQ,
underwent physical examination (for serious ailments that
might intrude with academic performance), vision, hearing
and Intelligence Quotient assessment.
Vision assessment was done using Snellen’s chart. Visual
acuity less than 6/60 was considered abnormal which is cut-
off for low vision as per ICD 10 [12].
Hearing assessment was done using Tuning fork 512 Hz by
Rinne’s and Webers test. Sensitivity and specificity was 87%
and 100% respectively. Hearing was considered impaired if
either of the test was abnormal [13].
IQ assessment was done using Seguins Form Board. It is
a performance based tool that assesses the visuo-motor
skills, eye-hand coordination, visual and spatial perception,
cognition speed and accuracy in performing skills. IQ of 90
measured for chronological age was considered cut-off for
normal. Correlation with other tests like Malins Intelligence
scale for Indian Children and Vineland Social Maturity
Scale ranges from 0.31–0.50 [14].
Children who had visual or hearing impairment or subnor-
mal intelligence were excluded from further evaluation.
Phase III – NIMHANS SLD index (Level I profile)
was administered to children who cleared Phase II assess-
ment of the study. It consists of 8 components: Attention,
Visual discrimination, Visual memory, Auditory discrimi-
nation, Auditory memory, Speech and Language,
Visuomotor skills and Writing skills. Any child less than
8 y who doesn’t perform adequately is considered to have
specific learning difficulty or at risk for SLD. Test retest
reliability is 0.53 (p < 0.001) [15].
95
Phase II and III were done by a single investigator to avoid
bias. IQ assessment was done by clinical psychologist of au-
thors’ Institute.
Data analysis was done using SPSS 24.0 software.
Variables such as socio-demographic characteristics, item
wise analysis of SLD-SQ, analysis of NIMHANS index
were represented in tables showing frequency and percent-
age. Logistic regression analysis was done to assess the
impact of gender, school sector and socio-economic status
on risk of SLD.
Results
The present study was conducted from September 2016
through October 2018. Four hundred ninety two students of
age 5–7 y studied in the selected schools. Twelve students
were excluded since parents did not give consent. Figure 1
shows the flow of subjects in the study. Majority of them
225(46.9%) were 6 y of age with 53.8% (258) boys and
46.3% (222) girls. Table 1 shows socio-demographic details
of students.
In Phase I, 109 (22.7%) children had a SLD-SQ score of
more than four suggesting possibility of having SLD of which
74 (67.9%) were boys and 35 (32.1%) were girls. This shows
higher screened positive male children, compared to female
children. In item wise analysis of SLD-SQ, ignoring punctu-
ation and capitals was the commonest problem seen in
174(36.3%) of the students, followed by ineligible writing
133(27.7%). Table 2 shows item wise analysis of SLD-SQ.
In Phase II, Out of 109 SLD-SQ screened positive stu-
dents, 9 had subnormal intelligence, 2 had hearing impair-
ment, 1 had visual impairment and were excluded.
Remaining 97 children were assessed with NIMHANS
Total number of students of age 5-7 y in selected
schools (n=492)
12 excluded since parents did not give consent
Total number of students included in the study (n=480)
Phase I – Screened with SLD-SQ by teachers
109 screened positive
Phase II – Visual impairment (n=1), Hearing impairment
(n=2), Subnormal intelligence (n=9)
12 excluded
Phase III – NIMHANS SLD index – 36 students
identified at risk of SLD
Fig. 1 Flow of subjects in the study. SLD Specific learning disability
96 Indian J Pediatr (February 2020) 87(2):94–98

Table 1 Socio-demographic details of students (n = 480) Table 3 Item wise analysis of NIMHANS index (Level I profile) (n =
97)
Characteristics n (%)
S. No Items n (%)
Age (in years)
5y 91 (19) 1. Writing skills 35 (36.1)
6y 225 (46.9) 2. Visual discrimination 13 (13.4)
7y 164 (34.2) 3. Auditory behavior 12 (12.4)
Sex 4. Auditory memory 10 (10.3)
Boys 258 (53.8) 5. Auditory discrimination 9 (9.3)
Girls 222 (46.3) 6. Visual discrimination 6 (6.2)
School sector 7. Attention 5 (5.2)
Government 255 (53.1) 8. Visuomotor skills 3 (3.1)
Private 225 (46.9) 9. Verbal language expression 0
Socio-economic status
n No. of students evaluated with NIMHANS SLD index
Class I (Upper class) 8 (1.7)
Class II (Upper middle class) 62 (12.9) risk, yet there was no statistical significance (p 0.48).
Class III (Middle class) 241 (50.2) Comparing school sector to SLD risk status, 12.1% children
Class IV (Lower middle class) 141 (29.4) from government schools were at risk but only 2.2% from
Class V (Lower class) 28 (5.8) private schools were at risk. The association was found to be
statistically significant (p 0.000) (Table 4).
n No. of students enrolled in the study

SLD index (Phase III) and 36 students (7.5% of study pop-
ulation) were found to be at the risk of SLD.
In item wise analysis of NIMHANS SLD index, most of
the affected children had difficulty in writing skills
[35(36.1%)], followed by impaired visual discrimination
[13(13.4%)], poor auditory behavior [12(12.4%)] and inade-
quate auditory memory [10(10.3%)]. Table 3 shows item wise
analysis of NIMHANS index.
Analysing the association of socio-demographic factors
with risk of developing SLD, it is evident that gender has
statistically significant association (p 0.02) with 9.6% of boys
being affected compared to 4.6% girls. In socio-economic
grounds, 8.3% children from lower socio-economic status
(SES) were at risk while only 1.6% from high SES were at
Discussion
The present study was conducted in six schools in
puducherry. Three government and three private schools
were included to study the differences in prevalence and risk
factors. Age group 5 to 7 y was chosen since the age of
identification plays a major role in outcome of the child.
The screening and assessment tools used were SLD-SQ
and NIMHANS SLD index respectively. These tools are
recommended by the recent Indian Academy of Pediatrics
(IAP) consensus on evaluation and management of learning
disability [16].
In the present study, the proportion of children at risk of devel-
oping specific learning disability was found to be 7.5%. This

Table 2 Item wise analysis of

SLD-SQ (n = 480) S. No Item n (%)

1. Ignore capitals or punctuation while writing 174 (36.3)

2. Writes in ineligible writing 133 (27.7)
3. Difficulty in differentiating similar sounding words 126 (26.9)
4. Gets confused in mathematical symbols 126 (26.3)
5. Forget lessons easily 126 (26.2)
6. Misplaces words or letters while reading or writing 124 (25.8)
7. Makes mistakes in solving math problem 123 (25.6)
8. Makes frequent mistakes in spelling while reading or writing 121 (25.2)
9. Miss out words or sentences while reading 103 (21.5)
10. Difficulty in understanding what is taught in class 89 (18.5)
11. Overall academic ability much below his/her grade level 74 (15.4)
12. Difficult to make down what is written on the board 48 (10)

n Number of students enrolled in the study

Indian J Pediatr (February 2020) 87(2):94–98 97

Table 4 Association between

socio-demographic variables and Variables At risk of No risk of Odds 95% Confidence P
SLD risk status SLD SLD ratio Interval value
(n = 36) (n = 444)

Gender
Boys (n = 258) 25 (9.6%) 233 (90.3%) 0.407 0.190–0.871 0.02
Girls (n = 222) 11 (4.9%) 211 (95.1%)

Socio-economic status
High (Class I, II, III) 1 (1.6%) 59 (98.3%) 1.33 0.593–3.006 0.485
(n = 60)
Low (Class IV, V) 35 (8.3%) 385 (91.6%)
(n = 420)

School sector
Private (n = 225) 5 (2.2%) 220 (97.8%) 0.179 0.071–0.450 0.000
Government (n = 255) 31 (12.1%) 224 (87.8%)

p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant

finding is closely in consistence with a study conducted at Andhra
Pradhesh in 2017 by Bandla et al. (6.6%) [17]. However, it is
relatively low when compared to studies conducted by
Mogasale VV (15.17%) at Karnataka in the year 2014 and
Sridevi et al. (19%) in Hyderabad (2015) [5, 18]. Analyzing var-
ious other studies, range of SLD prevalence can be given as 6.6%
to 19% in South India [5, 17–20] and 1.58% to 12.8% in north
India [2–4, 21–23]. These studies had heterogeneity in sample
size, sampling technique, screening tool used, method used for
assessing SLD, study setting, study population and environmental
background which explains variation in the prevalence figures.
The present study showed statistically significant gender dif-
ference with boys (9.6%) being affected twice more than girls
(4.9%). According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-5), learning disability is two to three
times more prevalent in boys than in girls [1]. In an article pub-
lished in JAMA that includes four large epidemiological studies
on sex differences in SLD with almost 10,000 participants, it is
clearly evident that SLD is substantially more common in boys
[24]. A genetic research on X-chromosome has unravelled nine
new genes, which because of their location on X-chromosome,
are known to affect predominantly males [25]. Also physiologi-
cal differences between males and females like developmental
lag in childhood, biochemical (boys are resilient to proteins), and
neonatal differences (hormonal milieu – more exposure to andro-
gen in boys) could play a role [26].
Similarly, students from government schools (12%) were
more at risk compared to private school students (2.2%) and
there was statistical significance. Lack of adequate training,
perhaps due to late admission age, poor parental supervision
and involvement could be contributing factors.
Regarding socio-economic status, 8.3% children from low-
er socio-economic status were at risk while only 1.6% from
high SES were at risk, yet there was no statistical significance.
Similar finding was noted by Padhy et al. [2]. Karande and
Bandla et al. stated a high prevalence rate of SLD among high
and upper middle socio-economic class [7, 17]. The study
settings in these studies were from private remediable clinics
whose parents are expected to be economically affordable.
With item wise analysis of SLD-SQ, ignoring punctuation
and capitals was the commonest problem, followed by ineli-
gible writing. Padhy et al. also used SLD-SQ to screen for
SLD [2]. They found missing out words or sentences while
reading to be the commonest issue followed by, misplacing
letters or words while reading or writing.
With item wise analysis of NIMHANS index, 36.1% had dif-
ficulty in writing (dysgraphia), followed by impaired visual dis-
crimination in 13.4% and poor auditory behavior in 12.4%. Since
age group included in present study is 5 to 7 y, Level I profile is
used and if any child does not perform adequately, he/she is con-
sidered to have specific learning ‘difficulty’, not disability.
Neuronal circuitry is constantly reconstructed in response to ex-
perience. Hence effective early intervention can potentially bring
in compensatory mechanisms to bridge functional gaps [27].
During the course of study, authors observed that the
awareness of teachers on SLD was limited. Kamala et al. con-
ducted a study among teachers in Puducherry and found that
their understanding on SLD is sparse [28]. Padhy et al. also
reported the same [29].
Strengths of present study are use of standardised screening
and assessment tools. Not many studies have been conducted
in 5–7 y age children to identify those ‘at risk’ and this is first
such study in the region.
The use of NIMHANS index in English could have led to
overestimation of prevalence in government schools. Also
clustering of schools in one region is a limiting factor in
generalising the results to whole of Puducherry. The associa-
tion of other psycho-behavioral conditions were not looked
for in the participants. Those identified ‘at risk’ need reassess-
ment at 8 y since few maybe ‘normal late developers’.
98
Conclusions
The authors found a proportion of 7.5% children, belonging to
age group of 5 to 7 y to be ‘at risk’ of developing SLD with
significant male predominance. Teachers and pediatricians
should be made aware of early signs of SLD. Screening tools
need to be standardised and made available in all vernacular
languages. Also universal screening for LD should be made
mandatory and remedial centres made accessible and econom-
ical. This promotes early identification and intervention,
which is crucial to optimise learning and prevent secondary
emotional problems. More longitudinal studies on large scale
focussing on intervention strategies would help in standardiz-
ing the management protocols for such children.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the School teachers
who helped them in screening children with SLD-SQ score and Dr.
Sindhuri, Assistant Professor, Community Medicine, Sri Manakula
Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital for statistical analysis.
Authors’ Contribution SLC collected the data, reviewed the literature and
drafted the manuscript. KT and AA conceptualized the study, reviewed
the literature and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors contrib-
uted to writing the paper and approved the final version of the manuscript.
AA is the guarantor for this paper.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest None.
References
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®), 5th ed. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Pub; 2013.
2. Padhy SK, Goel S, Das SS, Sarkar S, Sharma V, Panigrahi M.
Prevalence and patterns of learning disabilities in school children.
Indian J Pediatr. 2016;83:300–6.
3. Arun P, Chavan BS, Bhargava R, Sharma A, Kaur J. Prevalence of
specific developmental disorder of scholastic skill in school stu-
dents in Chandigarh, India. Indian J Med Res. 2013;138:89.
4. Dhanda A, Jagawat T. Prevalence and patterns of learning disabil-
ities in school children. Delhi Psychiatry J. 2013;16:386–90.
5. Mogasale VV, Patil VD, Patil NM, Mogasale V. Prevalence of
specific learning disabilities among primary school children in a
south Indian city. Indian J Pediatr. 2012;79:342–7.
6. Altarac M, Saroha E. Lifetime prevalence of learning disability
among US children. Pediatrics. 2007;119:S77–83.
7. Karande S, Bhosrekar K, Kulkarni M, Thakker A. Health-related
quality of life of children with newly diagnosed specific learning
disability. J Trop Paediatr. 2009;55:160–9.
8. Karande S. Current challenges in managing specific learning dis-
ability in Indian children. J Postgrad Med. 2008;54:75.
9. Mugali J, Patil S, Gosavi K, Pattanshetti N, Kovvuri S, Deepthi PT.
Study of specific learning disorder in children with poor academic
performers. Int J Indian Psychol. 2017;4:153–7.
Indian J Pediatr (February 2020) 87(2):94–98
10. Pandey VK, Aggarwal P, Kakkar R. Modified BG Prasad’s socio-
economic classification-2018: the need of an update in the present
scenario. Indian J Comm Health. 2018;30:82–4.
11. Sinha UK. Specific Learning Disability- Screening Questionnaire
(SLD-SQ). New Delhi: Psychomatrix Corporation; 2012. p. 1–5.
12. World Health Organisation (2004). ICD-10: international statistical
classification of diseases and related health problems: tenth revi-
sion, 2nded. World Health Organisation. Available at: https://apps.
who.int/iris/handle/10665/42980.
13. Kelly EA, Li B, Adams ME. Diagnostic accuracy of tuning fork
tests for hearing loss: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818770405.
14. Koshy B, Thomas T, Mary H, et al. Seguin form board as an intel-
ligence tool for young children in an Indian urban slum. Fam Med
Commun Health. 2017;5:275–81.
15. Panicker AS, Bhattacharya S, Hirisave U, Nalini NR. Reliability
and validity of the NIMHANS index of specific learning disabil-
ities. Indian J Mental Health. 2015;2:175–81.
16. Nair MKC, Prasad C, Unni J, Bhattacharya A, Kamath SS, Dalwai
S. Consensus statement of the Indian academy of pediatrics on
evaluation and management of learning disability. Indian Pediatr.
2017;54:574–80.
17. Bandla S, Mandadi GD, Bhogaraju A. Specific learning disabilities
and psychiatric comorbidities in school children in South India.
Indian J Psychol Med. 2017;39:76–82.
18. Sridevi G, George AG, Sriveni D, Rangaswami K. Learning dis-
ability and behavior problems among school going children. J
Disabil Stud. 2015;1:4–9.
19. Petchimuthu P, Sharma N, Gaur A, Kumar R. Pattern of specific
learning disability and awareness among care providers in children
between 8-12 years. Int J Contemp Pediatr. 2018;5:809–14.
20. Kumari MV, Barkiya SM. Children with poor school performance
for specific learning disability. Int J Sci Stud. 2016;3:201–5.
21. Kumar J, Suman S. Identification and prevalence of learning dis-
abled students. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2017;7:317–9.
22. Singh RP, Nijhawan A, Nijhawan M, et al. Prevalence of dyslexia
among school children in western Rajasthan, Jaipur. IOSR J Dental
Med Sci. 2017;16:59–62.
23. Choudhary MG, Jain A, Chahar CK, Singhal AK. A case control
study on specific learning disorders in school going children in
Bikaner city. Indian J Pediatr. 2012;79:1477–81.
24. Rutter M, Caspi A, Fergusson D, et al. Sex differences in develop-
mental reading disability: new findings from 4 epidemiological
studies. JAMA. 2004;291:2007–12.
25. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "Learning Disabilities In Males:
Nine New X Chromosome Genes Linked To Learning Disabilities."
ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 April 2009. Available at: www.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090419133841.htm
26. Morgan SR. The learning disabilities population: why more boys
than girls? A hot area for research. J Clin Child Psychol. 1979;8:
211–3.
27. Shaywitz SE, Morris R, Shaywitz BA. The education of dyslexic
children from childhood to young adulthood. Ann Rev Psychol.
2008;59:451–75.
28. Kamala R, Ramganesh E. Knowledge of specific learning disabil-
ities among teacher educators in Puducherry, union territory in
India. Int Rev Soc Sci Humanities. 2013;6:168–75.
29. Padhy SK, Goel S, Das SS, Sarkar S, Sharma V, Panigrahi M.
Perception of teachers about learning disorder in a northern city
of India. J Family Med Prim Care. 2015;4:432–4.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.