Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5278
M. Coleman, L. K. Kildare, Sherry M. Bell, Amanda M. Carter
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of text-to-speech software on reading fluency and comprehension for four postsecondary students with below average reading fluency and comprehension including three students diagnosed with learning disabilities and concomitant conditions (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, seizure disorder) and one student whose primary language is Korean. Three conditions were compared using an alternating treatments design: reading aloud without text-to-speech software, reading aloud after reading along with text-to-speech software at 25% faster than the students baseline mean, and reading aloud after reading along with text-to-speech software at 75% faster than the students baseline mean. Results were mixed, with the 25% condition having slightly better outcomes for three participants despite most participants indicating a preference for the faster computer modeling speed.
{"title":"Comparing the Impact of Rates of Text-to-Speech Software on Reading Fluency and Comprehension for Adults With Reading Difficulties","authors":"M. Coleman, L. K. Kildare, Sherry M. Bell, Amanda M. Carter","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5278","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of text-to-speech software on reading fluency and comprehension for four postsecondary students with below average reading fluency and comprehension including three students diagnosed with learning disabilities and concomitant conditions (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, seizure disorder) and one student whose primary language is Korean. Three conditions were compared using an alternating treatments design: reading aloud without text-to-speech software, reading aloud after reading along with text-to-speech software at 25% faster than the students baseline mean, and reading aloud after reading along with text-to-speech software at 75% faster than the students baseline mean. Results were mixed, with the 25% condition having slightly better outcomes for three participants despite most participants indicating a preference for the faster computer modeling speed.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"87-97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90663245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5276
Lda Expert Panel
The following Expert Panel White Paper should be considered a working document for reference purposes. This White Paper project was undertaken to address the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) concerns regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 statutory and regulatory requirements for the identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), and the subsequent U. S. Department of Education Final Regulations and Commentary regarding implementation of IDEIA (34 CFR Parts 300 and 301; Federal Register, 2006).The purpose of the White Paper is to provide additional information for and guidance to the federal government, professional organizations, practitioners, and the public. The LDA is hopeful that this document will facilitate legal, regulatory, policy, and training decisions, and ultimately, service delivery to children with SLD.Subsequent to public release, the LDA sought to examine the arguments presented in IDEIA and the Final Regulations. The LDA Public Policy/Advocacy Committee solicited a number of professionals to examine the evidence that supported or refuted the information presented in the law and commentary. This LDA effort resulted in an LDA White Paper Survey of experts in the field, which in turn led to the production of this White Paper.This White Paper presents the expert professional opinions and empirical evidence regarding the identification of children with SLD and best practices in SLD service delivery. The preliminary findings of the LDA Expert Panel Survey (see Appendix A) and this White Paper represent the opinions and empirical evidence presented by 56 university professors and researchers, special education administrators, and special education lawyers with expertise in and public recognition for their work in SLD identification and intervention.All Expert Panel participants have published extensively in SLD, cognitive/neuropsychological assessment of high incidence disorders including SLD, and/or SLD educational intervention, in peer-reviewed journals, peer reviewed scholarly books, and/or argued legal cases in court proceedings. Individual curricula vitae are available upon request. However, it is important to recognize this was not a random sample of potential experts, but rather a survey of those individuals who have been recognized by their peers as SLD scholars with legitimate professional investments in the law and practice concerning SLD identification and intervention.This White Paper provides a summary of these Expert Panel White Paper Survey opinions, with relevant, but not exhaustive citations (provided as endnotes) that provide support for these conclusions. The five major conclusions drawn from these opinions and empirical evidence include the following:Maintain the SLD definition and strengthen statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures;Neither ability-achievement discrepancy analyses nor failure to respond to intervention (RTI) alo
以下专家小组白皮书应视为供参考的工作文件。本白皮书项目旨在解决美国学习障碍协会(LDA)对2004年《残疾人教育改善法案》(IDEIA)中对特殊学习障碍(SLD)的法定和监管要求的关注，以及随后美国教育部关于IDEIA实施的最终条例和评论(34 CFR part 300和301;联邦公报，2006)。白皮书的目的是为联邦政府、专业组织、从业人员和公众提供额外的信息和指导。LDA希望这份文件能够促进法律、监管、政策和培训决策，并最终促进向特殊学习障碍儿童提供服务。在公开发布之后，LDA试图审查IDEIA和最终条例中提出的论点。LDA公共政策/倡导委员会邀请了一些专业人士来审查支持或反驳法律和评论中提供的信息的证据。这项LDA工作的结果是该领域专家的LDA白皮书调查，这反过来又导致了本白皮书的产生。本白皮书介绍了专家的专业意见和经验证据，以确定患有特殊障碍的儿童和提供特殊障碍服务的最佳做法。LDA专家小组调查的初步结果(见附录A)和本白皮书代表了56名大学教授和研究人员、特殊教育管理人员和特殊教育律师提出的意见和经验证据，他们在特殊障碍识别和干预方面的工作具有专业知识和公众认可。所有专家小组的参与者都在同行评议的期刊、同行评议的学术书籍和/或在法庭诉讼中辩论的法律案件上发表了大量关于SLD、包括SLD在内的高发病率疾病的认知/神经心理学评估和/或SLD教育干预的文章。个人简历可根据要求提供。然而，重要的是要认识到这不是一个潜在专家的随机样本，而是对那些被同行认可为SLD学者的个人的调查，他们在有关SLD识别和干预的法律和实践方面进行了合法的专业投资。本白皮书提供了这些专家小组白皮书调查意见的摘要，并提供了相关但不详尽的引用(作为尾注提供)，以支持这些结论。从这些观点和经验证据中得出的五个主要结论包括:维持特殊障碍的定义并加强特殊障碍识别程序中的法定要求;能力-成就差异分析和干预反应失败(RTI)都不足以识别特殊障碍;为了满足特殊障碍法定和监管要求，第三种方法是识别心理加工优势和缺陷模式。经验验证的RTI模型可用于预防儿童的学习问题，但在必要时应进行全面的评估，以识别特殊学习障碍，患有特殊学习障碍的儿童需要基于特定学习需求的个性化干预，而不仅仅是为普通教育儿童设计的更强烈的干预;认知和神经心理过程的评估不仅应用于识别，还应用于干预目的，这些评估-干预关系需要进一步的实证研究。
{"title":"Critical Issues in Response-to-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus","authors":"Lda Expert Panel","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5276","url":null,"abstract":"The following Expert Panel White Paper should be considered a working document for reference purposes. This White Paper project was undertaken to address the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) concerns regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 statutory and regulatory requirements for the identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), and the subsequent U. S. Department of Education Final Regulations and Commentary regarding implementation of IDEIA (34 CFR Parts 300 and 301; Federal Register, 2006).The purpose of the White Paper is to provide additional information for and guidance to the federal government, professional organizations, practitioners, and the public. The LDA is hopeful that this document will facilitate legal, regulatory, policy, and training decisions, and ultimately, service delivery to children with SLD.Subsequent to public release, the LDA sought to examine the arguments presented in IDEIA and the Final Regulations. The LDA Public Policy/Advocacy Committee solicited a number of professionals to examine the evidence that supported or refuted the information presented in the law and commentary. This LDA effort resulted in an LDA White Paper Survey of experts in the field, which in turn led to the production of this White Paper.This White Paper presents the expert professional opinions and empirical evidence regarding the identification of children with SLD and best practices in SLD service delivery. The preliminary findings of the LDA Expert Panel Survey (see Appendix A) and this White Paper represent the opinions and empirical evidence presented by 56 university professors and researchers, special education administrators, and special education lawyers with expertise in and public recognition for their work in SLD identification and intervention.All Expert Panel participants have published extensively in SLD, cognitive/neuropsychological assessment of high incidence disorders including SLD, and/or SLD educational intervention, in peer-reviewed journals, peer reviewed scholarly books, and/or argued legal cases in court proceedings. Individual curricula vitae are available upon request. However, it is important to recognize this was not a random sample of potential experts, but rather a survey of those individuals who have been recognized by their peers as SLD scholars with legitimate professional investments in the law and practice concerning SLD identification and intervention.This White Paper provides a summary of these Expert Panel White Paper Survey opinions, with relevant, but not exhaustive citations (provided as endnotes) that provide support for these conclusions. The five major conclusions drawn from these opinions and empirical evidence include the following:Maintain the SLD definition and strengthen statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures;Neither ability-achievement discrepancy analyses nor failure to respond to intervention (RTI) alo","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87237328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5277
L. Ketterlin-Geller, Lindy Crawford, Jacqueline N. Huscroft-D’Angelo
In this paper, we describe the design, development, and initial validity evidence for the Screening to Assign Accommodations Tool (SAAT). The purpose of the SAAT is to identify students for whom construct irrelevant variance (CIV) might obscure measurement of their knowledge, skills, and abilities in mathematics. Once students are identified as having risk factors that might interfere with accurate measurement of the tested construct, additional information can be collected to determine the most appropriate accommodations that will reduce the impact of construct irrelevant variance on their observed academic performance. Implications, limitations, and future research for the refinement of this instrument are discussed.
{"title":"Screening to Assign Accommodations: Using Data to Make Decisions.","authors":"L. Ketterlin-Geller, Lindy Crawford, Jacqueline N. Huscroft-D’Angelo","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5277","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we describe the design, development, and initial validity evidence for the Screening to Assign Accommodations Tool (SAAT). The purpose of the SAAT is to identify students for whom construct irrelevant variance (CIV) might obscure measurement of their knowledge, skills, and abilities in mathematics. Once students are identified as having risk factors that might interfere with accurate measurement of the tested construct, additional information can be collected to determine the most appropriate accommodations that will reduce the impact of construct irrelevant variance on their observed academic performance. Implications, limitations, and future research for the refinement of this instrument are discussed.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"81 1","pages":"73-86"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90483374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5152
H. Kubas, Amy D. Schmid, M. Drefs, J. Poole, Sara C. Holland, Catherine A. Fiorello
Children with math disabilities (MD) represent a heterogeneous group and often display deficits in one or more cognitive domains. Math proficiency requires a number of different cognitive processes, including quantitative knowledge, working memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning, and executive functions. Assessment practices that do not address a childs individual cognitive strengths and weaknesses may result in inaccurate identification of MD and may not lead to the most effective interventions. This study evaluated the use of a cognitive strengths and weaknesses approach for identifying MD and examined whether grouping children into specific MD subtypes would help identify specific patterns of performance on cognitive and academic measures. Participants included 283 children, aged 6 to 16, who underwent evaluations for learning and/or behavior problems in the Southern United States and Western Canada. Using ConcordanceDiscordance Model (C-DM) SLD identification criteria, results revealed No SLD, Below Average MD, High-Functioning MD, and Other SLD groups, with examination of WJ-III Calculation, Math Fluency, and Applied Problems for MD subtypes undertaken. Results confirm that differing sets of cognitive skills predict math performance across groups, suggesting that children with MD show unique strengths in some cognitive areas, but may have difficulty utilizing these cognitive skills across various mathematical domains. Limitations, implications, and future research needs are addressed.
{"title":"Cognitive and Academic Profiles Associated With Math Disability Subtypes","authors":"H. Kubas, Amy D. Schmid, M. Drefs, J. Poole, Sara C. Holland, Catherine A. Fiorello","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5152","url":null,"abstract":"Children with math disabilities (MD) represent a heterogeneous group and often display deficits in one or more cognitive domains. Math proficiency requires a number of different cognitive processes, including quantitative knowledge, working memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning, and executive functions. Assessment practices that do not address a childs individual cognitive strengths and weaknesses may result in inaccurate identification of MD and may not lead to the most effective interventions. This study evaluated the use of a cognitive strengths and weaknesses approach for identifying MD and examined whether grouping children into specific MD subtypes would help identify specific patterns of performance on cognitive and academic measures. Participants included 283 children, aged 6 to 16, who underwent evaluations for learning and/or behavior problems in the Southern United States and Western Canada. Using ConcordanceDiscordance Model (C-DM) SLD identification criteria, results revealed No SLD, Below Average MD, High-Functioning MD, and Other SLD groups, with examination of WJ-III Calculation, Math Fluency, and Applied Problems for MD subtypes undertaken. Results confirm that differing sets of cognitive skills predict math performance across groups, suggesting that children with MD show unique strengths in some cognitive areas, but may have difficulty utilizing these cognitive skills across various mathematical domains. Limitations, implications, and future research needs are addressed.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"31 1","pages":"31-44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85366911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I3-5886
Gail Cahill, Barbara Govendo
The National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Common Core State Standards require students, starting in elementary school, to read an increasing amount of informational text (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Students with learning disabilities, however, typically struggle with expository text and require even more direct instruction than do students without such disabilities. In the past decade, evidence-based research has supported highly specific instruction for struggling readers. This article presents three areas of intervention that assist all students, but particularly those with learning disabilities, to understand expository text. We focus on the areas of text features and structures, content enhancements, and cognitive strategies. We also provide suggestions for classroom interventions for each of the three areas.
{"title":"A Good Reader Has a Plan: Helping Students With Learning Disabilities","authors":"Gail Cahill, Barbara Govendo","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I3-5886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I3-5886","url":null,"abstract":"The National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Common Core State Standards require students, starting in elementary school, to read an increasing amount of informational text (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Students with learning disabilities, however, typically struggle with expository text and require even more direct instruction than do students without such disabilities. In the past decade, evidence-based research has supported highly specific instruction for struggling readers. This article presents three areas of intervention that assist all students, but particularly those with learning disabilities, to understand expository text. We focus on the areas of text features and structures, content enhancements, and cognitive strategies. We also provide suggestions for classroom interventions for each of the three areas.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"158-163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87285959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5150
Jessica Carmichael, Rebecca L. Fraccaro, Daniel C. Miller, D. Maricle
Reading, writing, and math are academic skills involving a number of different executive functions, particularly working memory. Children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) may present myriad academic difficulties, depending on their specific area(s) of processing weakness. This study examined differences in academic achievement and working memory across different subtypes of SLD. Participants included 283 children (194 males, 89 females; M = 9.58; SD = 2.29.
{"title":"Academic Achievement and Memory Differences among Specific Learning Disabilities Subtypes.","authors":"Jessica Carmichael, Rebecca L. Fraccaro, Daniel C. Miller, D. Maricle","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5150","url":null,"abstract":"Reading, writing, and math are academic skills involving a number of different executive functions, particularly working memory. Children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) may present myriad academic difficulties, depending on their specific area(s) of processing weakness. This study examined differences in academic achievement and working memory across different subtypes of SLD. Participants included 283 children (194 males, 89 females; M = 9.58; SD = 2.29.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"8-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84989874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5154
Catherine A. Fiorello, D. Flanagan, J. B. Hale
Unlike abilityachievement discrepancy and response-to-intervention approaches, the processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach is the only empirically based approach that attempts to identify the pattern of deficit in the basic psychological processes that interferes with academic achievement for children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). If used in combination with RTI, any child who meets PSW criteria would be more likely to be correctly identified as having SLD because both IDEA (2004) statutory (i.e., SLD definition) and regulatory (i.e., SLD method) requirements would be met. In addition, understanding a childs PSW could lead directly to differentiated instruction and targeted interventions for affected children. Although PSW research has been emerging in recent years, this is the first special issue devoted to empirical examination of the PSW method. The articles presented here attest to the value and potential of a PSW approach to identifying SLD, but the critique presented here suggests a rigid psychometric PSW approach is insufficient for identifying SLD and other disorders. Implications for clinical practice and future research will be elucidated.
{"title":"Response to the Special Issue: The Utility of the Pattern of the Strengths and Weaknesses Approach","authors":"Catherine A. Fiorello, D. Flanagan, J. B. Hale","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5154","url":null,"abstract":"Unlike abilityachievement discrepancy and response-to-intervention approaches, the processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach is the only empirically based approach that attempts to identify the pattern of deficit in the basic psychological processes that interferes with academic achievement for children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). If used in combination with RTI, any child who meets PSW criteria would be more likely to be correctly identified as having SLD because both IDEA (2004) statutory (i.e., SLD definition) and regulatory (i.e., SLD method) requirements would be met. In addition, understanding a childs PSW could lead directly to differentiated instruction and targeted interventions for affected children. Although PSW research has been emerging in recent years, this is the first special issue devoted to empirical examination of the PSW method. The articles presented here attest to the value and potential of a PSW approach to identifying SLD, but the critique presented here suggests a rigid psychometric PSW approach is insufficient for identifying SLD and other disorders. Implications for clinical practice and future research will be elucidated.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73771383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5149
N. Mather, Nicholas F. Tanner
The purpose of this special issue is to explore and explain how a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach can be useful in the diagnosis and identification of individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLD). To understand a PSW approach, one must first understand the origins of the diagnostic category of SLD. Although some people may think that SLD as a disability category was created by federal legislation in the 1970s, the roots of SLD can be traced back to at least the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Hammill, 1993; Wiederholt, 1974). Many of the conclusions drawn in the late 1800s and early 1900s regarding the assessment of students with SLD, as well as the characteristics of these disorders, are still pertinent today.
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue on Diagnosis and Identification of Individuals with Specific Learning Disability: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses","authors":"N. Mather, Nicholas F. Tanner","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5149","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this special issue is to explore and explain how a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach can be useful in the diagnosis and identification of individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLD). To understand a PSW approach, one must first understand the origins of the diagnostic category of SLD. Although some people may think that SLD as a disability category was created by federal legislation in the 1970s, the roots of SLD can be traced back to at least the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Hammill, 1993; Wiederholt, 1974). Many of the conclusions drawn in the late 1800s and early 1900s regarding the assessment of students with SLD, as well as the characteristics of these disorders, are still pertinent today.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74095697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5151
S. Feifer, R. G. Nader, D. Flanagan, Kim R. Fitzer, Kelly Hicks
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the various neurocognitive processes concomitant to reading by attempting to identify various subtypes of reading disorders in a referred sample. Participants were 216 elementary school students in grades two through five who were given select subtests of the Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Ability. They were classified using a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach as having no SLD (control), 49 had an Associative Learning (Glr) SLD, 21 had a Gf-Gv SLD, 42 had a Gc SLD, 29 had a Learning Efficiency (Gs) SLD, and 40 had an Executive (Gsm) subtype SLD. Regressions completed for each of the six groups indicated that differing sets of cognitive skills were predictive of reading performance pertaining to letter and word identification skills, reading fluency skills, and passage comprehension skills. Rather than one, unique cognitive profile that represents all students with reading disorders,breakdowns in phonology, orthography, working memory, executive skills, and processing speed contribute in varying amounts to deficits in decoding, fluency, and deriving meaning from print. Viewing reading disorders from a subtype perspective allows us to more accurately classify, and most importantly, inform intervention decision making. Specific intervention recommendations are suggested for each cognitive subtype, and a discussion regarding limitations, and implications for future research are addressed as well.
{"title":"Identifying Specific Reading Disability Subtypes for Effective Educational Remediation.","authors":"S. Feifer, R. G. Nader, D. Flanagan, Kim R. Fitzer, Kelly Hicks","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5151","url":null,"abstract":"The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the various neurocognitive processes concomitant to reading by attempting to identify various subtypes of reading disorders in a referred sample. Participants were 216 elementary school students in grades two through five who were given select subtests of the Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Ability. They were classified using a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach as having no SLD (control), 49 had an Associative Learning (Glr) SLD, 21 had a Gf-Gv SLD, 42 had a Gc SLD, 29 had a Learning Efficiency (Gs) SLD, and 40 had an Executive (Gsm) subtype SLD. Regressions completed for each of the six groups indicated that differing sets of cognitive skills were predictive of reading performance pertaining to letter and word identification skills, reading fluency skills, and passage comprehension skills. Rather than one, unique cognitive profile that represents all students with reading disorders,breakdowns in phonology, orthography, working memory, executive skills, and processing speed contribute in varying amounts to deficits in decoding, fluency, and deriving meaning from print. Viewing reading disorders from a subtype perspective allows us to more accurately classify, and most importantly, inform intervention decision making. Specific intervention recommendations are suggested for each cognitive subtype, and a discussion regarding limitations, and implications for future research are addressed as well.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"18-30"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90706123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-01DOI: 10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5279
Priscila Caçola
The study of children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) has emerged as a vibrant line of inquiry over the last three decades. DCD is defined as a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by poor motor proficiency that interferes with a childs activities of daily living (sometimes also known as dyspraxia). Common symptoms include marked delays in achieving motor milestones and clumsiness, typically associated with poor balance, coordination, and especially handwriting skills. The condition occurs in 5% to 6% of American school-aged children, implying that most school classes have at least one affected child. The outcomes associated with DCD often extend beyond the motor domain to include secondary mental health, emotional, and behavioral issues, with reports on higher anxiety and depression, poor social communication, being bullied, lower global self-esteem, and less participation in typical childhood activities. Because of those consequences, early diagnosis, treatment, and educational support are important. The purpose of this review is to summarize the relevant evidence on the topic of DCD for professionals of the learning disabilities field, providing specific information on its assessment, classification, treatment, learning implications, and practical tips to assist school practitioners, educators, and administrators.
{"title":"Movement Difficulties Affect Children's Learning: An Overview of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD).","authors":"Priscila Caçola","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I2-5279","url":null,"abstract":"The study of children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) has emerged as a vibrant line of inquiry over the last three decades. DCD is defined as a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by poor motor proficiency that interferes with a childs activities of daily living (sometimes also known as dyspraxia). Common symptoms include marked delays in achieving motor milestones and clumsiness, typically associated with poor balance, coordination, and especially handwriting skills. The condition occurs in 5% to 6% of American school-aged children, implying that most school classes have at least one affected child. The outcomes associated with DCD often extend beyond the motor domain to include secondary mental health, emotional, and behavioral issues, with reports on higher anxiety and depression, poor social communication, being bullied, lower global self-esteem, and less participation in typical childhood activities. Because of those consequences, early diagnosis, treatment, and educational support are important. The purpose of this review is to summarize the relevant evidence on the topic of DCD for professionals of the learning disabilities field, providing specific information on its assessment, classification, treatment, learning implications, and practical tips to assist school practitioners, educators, and administrators.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"26 1","pages":"98-106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72976529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：