使用WAIS-IV和LSC-SUA对意大利大学生阅读理解障碍(RCD)与解码困难-阅读障碍的认知特征进行探索性和描述性比较

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Journal of Youth Development Pub Date : 2023-02-26 DOI:10.3390/youth3010023
D. D’Elia, L. Carpinelli, G. Savarese
{"title":"使用WAIS-IV和LSC-SUA对意大利大学生阅读理解障碍(RCD)与解码困难-阅读障碍的认知特征进行探索性和描述性比较","authors":"D. D’Elia, L. Carpinelli, G. Savarese","doi":"10.3390/youth3010023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The “Guidelines for the Management of Specific Learning Disorders” provide clear diagnostic and evaluative guidance on Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD), as suggested by the DSM-5. The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive abilities in university students with RCD compared to students with Decoding Difficulties—i.e., dyslexia (DD)—and examined possible diagnostic procedures for RCD in young adults. Methods: Twenty university students from the University of Salerno “Disabilities/SLD Help Desk” participated. The sample was divided into the RCD Group (10) and DD Group (10). They were administered (a) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) to assess their cognitive profile; and (b) the LSC-SUA-Reading tests for the assessment of text comprehension, writing, and calculation skills. Results: With regard to their cognitive profile, the DD Group had a lower mean of FSIQ (91.90 ± 5.82 vs. 92.50 ± 2.41). The RCD Group showed higher means in the subscales of CPI (94.80 ± 5.77), WMI (91.80 ± 78.80), and PSI (101.20 ± 6.20). Text comprehension assessment showed high averages in the DD Group (Track A = 11.50 ± 1.08; Track B = 11.40 ± 0.95). Conclusions: A valid psychodiagnostic model to examine reading comprehension skills for adults must assess the interaction between higher-level linguistic and cognitive processes in order to best define the pathways of skill enhancement.","PeriodicalId":46087,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Youth Development","volume":"138 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploratory and Descriptive Comparison Using the WAIS-IV and LSC-SUA of the Cognitive Profile of Italian University Students with Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) vs. Decoding Difficulties—Dyslexia\",\"authors\":\"D. D’Elia, L. Carpinelli, G. Savarese\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/youth3010023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The “Guidelines for the Management of Specific Learning Disorders” provide clear diagnostic and evaluative guidance on Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD), as suggested by the DSM-5. The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive abilities in university students with RCD compared to students with Decoding Difficulties—i.e., dyslexia (DD)—and examined possible diagnostic procedures for RCD in young adults. Methods: Twenty university students from the University of Salerno “Disabilities/SLD Help Desk” participated. The sample was divided into the RCD Group (10) and DD Group (10). They were administered (a) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) to assess their cognitive profile; and (b) the LSC-SUA-Reading tests for the assessment of text comprehension, writing, and calculation skills. Results: With regard to their cognitive profile, the DD Group had a lower mean of FSIQ (91.90 ± 5.82 vs. 92.50 ± 2.41). The RCD Group showed higher means in the subscales of CPI (94.80 ± 5.77), WMI (91.80 ± 78.80), and PSI (101.20 ± 6.20). Text comprehension assessment showed high averages in the DD Group (Track A = 11.50 ± 1.08; Track B = 11.40 ± 0.95). Conclusions: A valid psychodiagnostic model to examine reading comprehension skills for adults must assess the interaction between higher-level linguistic and cognitive processes in order to best define the pathways of skill enhancement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Youth Development\",\"volume\":\"138 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Youth Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/youth3010023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Youth Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/youth3010023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:《特殊学习障碍管理指南》为阅读理解障碍(RCD)提供了明确的诊断和评估指导,正如DSM-5所建议的那样。本研究探讨了RCD大学生认知能力与解码困难大学生认知能力的关系。并研究了年轻人RCD的可能诊断方法。方法:来自萨勒诺大学“残疾/特殊学习障碍服务台”的20名大学生参与。将样本分为RCD组(10例)和DD组(10例)。对他们进行(a)韦氏成人智力量表-第四版(WAIS-IV)评估他们的认知概况;(b) LSC-SUA-Reading测试,用于评估文本理解、写作和计算能力。结果:在认知方面,DD组的FSIQ平均值较低(91.90±5.82比92.50±2.41)。RCD组在CPI(94.80±5.77)、WMI(91.80±78.80)、PSI(101.20±6.20)三项分量表上均有较高的均数。文本理解评估显示DD组平均水平较高(Track A = 11.50±1.08;轨道B = 11.40±0.95)。结论:一个有效的心理诊断模型必须评估高水平语言和认知过程之间的相互作用,以便最好地定义技能增强的途径。
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
Exploratory and Descriptive Comparison Using the WAIS-IV and LSC-SUA of the Cognitive Profile of Italian University Students with Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD) vs. Decoding Difficulties—Dyslexia
Background: The “Guidelines for the Management of Specific Learning Disorders” provide clear diagnostic and evaluative guidance on Reading Comprehension Disorder (RCD), as suggested by the DSM-5. The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive abilities in university students with RCD compared to students with Decoding Difficulties—i.e., dyslexia (DD)—and examined possible diagnostic procedures for RCD in young adults. Methods: Twenty university students from the University of Salerno “Disabilities/SLD Help Desk” participated. The sample was divided into the RCD Group (10) and DD Group (10). They were administered (a) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) to assess their cognitive profile; and (b) the LSC-SUA-Reading tests for the assessment of text comprehension, writing, and calculation skills. Results: With regard to their cognitive profile, the DD Group had a lower mean of FSIQ (91.90 ± 5.82 vs. 92.50 ± 2.41). The RCD Group showed higher means in the subscales of CPI (94.80 ± 5.77), WMI (91.80 ± 78.80), and PSI (101.20 ± 6.20). Text comprehension assessment showed high averages in the DD Group (Track A = 11.50 ± 1.08; Track B = 11.40 ± 0.95). Conclusions: A valid psychodiagnostic model to examine reading comprehension skills for adults must assess the interaction between higher-level linguistic and cognitive processes in order to best define the pathways of skill enhancement.
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
Journal of Youth Development
Journal of Youth Development PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
26
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Friendship: The ‘Achilles Heel’ of European Youth Work Policy “I Don’t Feel Like There’s Enough Awareness about the Damage That Social Media Does”: A Thematic Analysis of the Relationships between Social Media Use, Mental Wellbeing, and Care Experience “It Feels like You’re a Stranger in Your Own Skin”: Young People’s Accounts of Everyday Embodiment “Only Time Will Tell”: The Underexplored Impacts of Lead Poisoning and COVID-19 on Pre-Existing ACEs in New York Outcomes beyond Evaluation: The Impetus and Measure of Relationships within Alternative Provisions
×
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