没有证据表明阅读障碍带来创造性益处:一项荟萃分析。

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Learning Disabilities Pub Date : 2022-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-04-24 DOI:10.1177/00222194211010350
Florina Erbeli, Peng Peng, Marianne Rice
{"title":"没有证据表明阅读障碍带来创造性益处:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Florina Erbeli,&nbsp;Peng Peng,&nbsp;Marianne Rice","doi":"10.1177/00222194211010350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on the question of creative benefit accompanying dyslexia has produced conflicting findings. In this meta-analysis, we determined summary effects of mean and variance differences in creativity between groups with and without dyslexia. Twenty studies were included (<i>n</i> = 770 individuals with dyslexia, <i>n</i> = 1,671 controls). A random-effects robust variance estimation (RVE) analysis indicated no mean (<i>g</i> = -0.02, <i>p</i> = .84) or variance (<i>g</i> = -0.0004, <i>p</i> = .99) differences in creativity between groups. The mean summary effect was moderated by age, gender, and creativity domain. Compared with adolescents, adults with dyslexia showed an advantage over nondyslexic adults in creativity. In addition, a higher proportion of males in the dyslexia group was associated with poorer performance compared with the controls. Finally, the dyslexia group showed a significant performance disadvantage in verbal versus figural creativity. Regarding variance differences, they varied across age and creativity domains. Compared with adults, adolescents showed smaller variability in the dyslexia group. If the creativity task measured verbal versus figural or combined creativity, the dyslexia group exhibited smaller variability. Altogether, our results suggest that individuals with dyslexia as a group are no more creative or show greater variability in creativity than peers without dyslexia.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"55 3","pages":"242-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00222194211010350","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No Evidence of Creative Benefit Accompanying Dyslexia: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Florina Erbeli,&nbsp;Peng Peng,&nbsp;Marianne Rice\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00222194211010350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on the question of creative benefit accompanying dyslexia has produced conflicting findings. In this meta-analysis, we determined summary effects of mean and variance differences in creativity between groups with and without dyslexia. Twenty studies were included (<i>n</i> = 770 individuals with dyslexia, <i>n</i> = 1,671 controls). A random-effects robust variance estimation (RVE) analysis indicated no mean (<i>g</i> = -0.02, <i>p</i> = .84) or variance (<i>g</i> = -0.0004, <i>p</i> = .99) differences in creativity between groups. The mean summary effect was moderated by age, gender, and creativity domain. Compared with adolescents, adults with dyslexia showed an advantage over nondyslexic adults in creativity. In addition, a higher proportion of males in the dyslexia group was associated with poorer performance compared with the controls. Finally, the dyslexia group showed a significant performance disadvantage in verbal versus figural creativity. Regarding variance differences, they varied across age and creativity domains. Compared with adults, adolescents showed smaller variability in the dyslexia group. If the creativity task measured verbal versus figural or combined creativity, the dyslexia group exhibited smaller variability. Altogether, our results suggest that individuals with dyslexia as a group are no more creative or show greater variability in creativity than peers without dyslexia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"55 3\",\"pages\":\"242-253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00222194211010350\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Learning Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211010350\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211010350","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

对伴随阅读障碍的创造性利益问题的研究产生了相互矛盾的发现。在这项荟萃分析中,我们确定了有阅读障碍和没有阅读障碍的两组之间创造力的平均和方差差异的总结效应。纳入了20项研究(n = 770名阅读障碍患者,n = 1671名对照)。随机效应稳健方差估计(RVE)分析显示,两组之间的创造力没有平均值(g = -0.02, p = 0.84)或方差(g = -0.0004, p = 0.99)差异。平均总结效应受年龄、性别和创造力领域的调节。与青少年相比,有阅读障碍的成年人在创造力方面比没有阅读障碍的成年人表现出优势。此外,与对照组相比,阅读障碍组中较高比例的男性表现较差。最后,诵读困难组在语言创造力和图形创造力方面表现出明显的劣势。关于方差差异,他们在年龄和创造力领域有所不同。与成年人相比,青少年在阅读障碍组中表现出较小的变异性。如果创造力任务测量的是语言与形象或综合创造力,那么失读症组表现出较小的变异性。总之,我们的研究结果表明,作为一个群体,有阅读障碍的个体并不比没有阅读障碍的同龄人更有创造力,或者在创造力方面表现出更大的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
No Evidence of Creative Benefit Accompanying Dyslexia: A Meta-Analysis.

Research on the question of creative benefit accompanying dyslexia has produced conflicting findings. In this meta-analysis, we determined summary effects of mean and variance differences in creativity between groups with and without dyslexia. Twenty studies were included (n = 770 individuals with dyslexia, n = 1,671 controls). A random-effects robust variance estimation (RVE) analysis indicated no mean (g = -0.02, p = .84) or variance (g = -0.0004, p = .99) differences in creativity between groups. The mean summary effect was moderated by age, gender, and creativity domain. Compared with adolescents, adults with dyslexia showed an advantage over nondyslexic adults in creativity. In addition, a higher proportion of males in the dyslexia group was associated with poorer performance compared with the controls. Finally, the dyslexia group showed a significant performance disadvantage in verbal versus figural creativity. Regarding variance differences, they varied across age and creativity domains. Compared with adults, adolescents showed smaller variability in the dyslexia group. If the creativity task measured verbal versus figural or combined creativity, the dyslexia group exhibited smaller variability. Altogether, our results suggest that individuals with dyslexia as a group are no more creative or show greater variability in creativity than peers without dyslexia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
相关文献
二甲双胍通过HDAC6和FoxO3a转录调控肌肉生长抑制素诱导肌肉萎缩
IF 8.9 1区 医学Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and MusclePub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12833
Min Ju Kang, Ji Wook Moon, Jung Ok Lee, Ji Hae Kim, Eun Jeong Jung, Su Jin Kim, Joo Yeon Oh, Sang Woo Wu, Pu Reum Lee, Sun Hwa Park, Hyeon Soo Kim
具有疾病敏感单倍型的非亲属供体脐带血移植后的1型糖尿病
IF 3.2 3区 医学Journal of Diabetes InvestigationPub Date : 2022-11-02 DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13939
Kensuke Matsumoto, Taisuke Matsuyama, Ritsu Sumiyoshi, Matsuo Takuji, Tadashi Yamamoto, Ryosuke Shirasaki, Haruko Tashiro
封面:蛋白质组学分析确定IRSp53和fastin是PRV输出和直接细胞-细胞传播的关键
IF 3.4 4区 生物学ProteomicsPub Date : 2019-12-02 DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201970201
Fei-Long Yu, Huan Miao, Jinjin Xia, Fan Jia, Huadong Wang, Fuqiang Xu, Lin Guo
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
期刊最新文献
Do Mathematics and Reading Skills Impact Student Science Outcomes? Considerations for Intensifying Word-Problem Interventions for Students With MD: A Qualitative Umbrella Review of Relevant Meta-Analyses. Domain-General and Domain-Specific Antecedents of Pre-Algebraic Knowledge: Focusing on English-Language Learners With Word-Problem Difficulty. The Role of Morphology and Sentence Context in Word Processing for Adults With Low Literacy. Specificity, Co-Occurrence, and Growth: Math and Reading Skill Development in Children With Learning Disabilities
×
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