使用LDAC和DSM-5标准获得的数学LD诊断率的比较:对该领域的启示

IF 3.3 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Canadian Journal of School Psychology Pub Date : 2020-05-15 DOI:10.1177/0829573520915366
Meadow Schroeder, M. Drefs, Michael L. Zwiers
{"title":"使用LDAC和DSM-5标准获得的数学LD诊断率的比较:对该领域的启示","authors":"Meadow Schroeder, M. Drefs, Michael L. Zwiers","doi":"10.1177/0829573520915366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.","PeriodicalId":46445,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","volume":"35 1","pages":"175 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0829573520915366","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field\",\"authors\":\"Meadow Schroeder, M. Drefs, Michael L. Zwiers\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0829573520915366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"175 - 196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0829573520915366\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915366\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915366","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在加拿大的背景下,两个主要的学习障碍分类系统是美国精神病学协会(APA)的《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》和加拿大学习障碍官方定义的学习障碍协会(LDAC)。DSM第五版最近的一些变化与LDAC定义形成了对比,后者将它们建立为相互竞争的诊断框架。当LDAC和DSM-5标准被建模并应用于存档数据集(2011-2016)时,我们调查了数学学习障碍识别的频率。结果表明,采用LDAC或DSM-5标准确定的数学学习障碍病例的百分比大致相似;然而,这两种方法确定了一组不同的病例。讨论了使用DSM-5与LDAC标准诊断学习障碍的意义,包括考虑采用国家诊断标准的必要性。
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
Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field
Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.
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
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of School Psychology
Canadian Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journals of School Psychology (CJSP) is the official journal of the Canadian Association of School Psychologists and publishes papers focusing on the interface between psychology and education. Papers may reflect theory, research, and practice of psychology in education, as well as book and test reviews. The journal is aimed at practitioners, but is subscribed to by university libraries and individuals (i.e. psychologists). CJSP has become the major reference for practicing school psychologists and students in graduate educational and school psychology programs in Canada.
期刊最新文献
Adolescent Dating Violence Prevention: Teaching Social Justice Oriented Skills and Strategies to Undergraduate-Level Teachers and Social Workers Introduction to Special Issue: How Research Reform in Psychology Can Influence Professional School Psychology Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in School Psychology Science and Scholarship: Changing Training and Practice in the Field of School Psychology The Role of Reciprocated Friendships in the Behavioral Correlates of Sociometric Categories Registered Reports in School Psychology Research: Initial Experiences, Analyses, and Future
×
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