Internalizing problems in individuals with reading, mathematics and unspecified learning difficulties: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Annals of Dyslexia Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.1007/s11881-023-00294-4
Ana Paula Alves Vieira, Peng Peng, Andrea Antoniuk, Jodi DeVries, Kyriakoula Rothou, Rauno Parrila, George Georgiou
{"title":"Internalizing problems in individuals with reading, mathematics and unspecified learning difficulties: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ana Paula Alves Vieira,&nbsp;Peng Peng,&nbsp;Andrea Antoniuk,&nbsp;Jodi DeVries,&nbsp;Kyriakoula Rothou,&nbsp;Rauno Parrila,&nbsp;George Georgiou","doi":"10.1007/s11881-023-00294-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine if individuals with reading difficulties (RD), mathematics difficulties (MD), or unspecified learning difficulties (ULD) experience internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and social withdrawal) to the same extent, and if the effect sizes are influenced by moderators (age, internalizing problems type, anxiety type, rater type, selection criteria, and attention control). We reviewed 2,806 studies published in English between January 2000 and April 2023. Our final sample consisted of 96 studies that reported effect sizes or data to calculate them (a total of 120 unique samples, 83,260 participants, age range = 7.3 – 34.8 years). Risk of bias and sensitivity were assessed. A random-effects model analysis revealed a significant and moderate overall effect size (Hedge's <i>g</i> = -.54), indicating that individuals with RD, MD or ULD experience more internalizing problems than their chronological-age (CA) controls. Follow-up analyses showed that neither learning difficulties type nor age of participants were significant moderators, but selection criteria (diagnosis versus screening) and internalizing problems type were. These findings suggest that individuals with RD do not differ from those with MD or ULD in internalizing problems, and all fare poorly compared to CA controls.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"74 1","pages":"4 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-023-00294-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine if individuals with reading difficulties (RD), mathematics difficulties (MD), or unspecified learning difficulties (ULD) experience internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and social withdrawal) to the same extent, and if the effect sizes are influenced by moderators (age, internalizing problems type, anxiety type, rater type, selection criteria, and attention control). We reviewed 2,806 studies published in English between January 2000 and April 2023. Our final sample consisted of 96 studies that reported effect sizes or data to calculate them (a total of 120 unique samples, 83,260 participants, age range = 7.3 – 34.8 years). Risk of bias and sensitivity were assessed. A random-effects model analysis revealed a significant and moderate overall effect size (Hedge's g = -.54), indicating that individuals with RD, MD or ULD experience more internalizing problems than their chronological-age (CA) controls. Follow-up analyses showed that neither learning difficulties type nor age of participants were significant moderators, but selection criteria (diagnosis versus screening) and internalizing problems type were. These findings suggest that individuals with RD do not differ from those with MD or ULD in internalizing problems, and all fare poorly compared to CA controls.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有阅读、数学和不明学习困难的人的内化问题:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以研究阅读困难(RD)、数学困难(MD)或未指定学习困难(ULD)的个体是否会在相同程度上出现内化问题(即焦虑、抑郁、躯体不适和社交退缩),以及效应大小是否会受到调节因素(年龄、内化问题类型、焦虑类型、评分者类型、选择标准和注意力控制)的影响。我们回顾了 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 4 月间发表的 2,806 篇英文研究。我们的最终样本包括 96 项报告了效应大小或计算效应大小数据的研究(共 120 个独特样本,83,260 名参与者,年龄范围 = 7.3 - 34.8 岁)。对偏倚风险和敏感性进行了评估。随机效应模型分析表明,总体效应大小显著且适中(Hedge's g = -.54),表明患有RD、MD或ULD的个体比其实际年龄(CA)的对照者经历了更多的内化问题。后续分析表明,学习困难类型和参与者的年龄都不是显著的调节因素,但选择标准(诊断与筛查)和内化问题类型是显著的调节因素。这些研究结果表明,在内化问题方面,RD患者与MD或ULD患者没有区别,与CA对照组相比,RD患者的表现都很差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Dyslexia
Annals of Dyslexia Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
The effects of orthography, phonology, semantics, and working memory on the reading comprehension of children with and without reading dyslexia. Impaired visual and verbal statistical learning in children with Dyslexia in a transparent orthography. Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among adolescents in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis with a focus on content-area reading. Orthographic-phonological mapping impairments in Chinese children with developmental dyslexia: insights from an ERP investigation. Foveal crowding in children with developmental dyslexia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1