Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal最新文献

{"title":"The Primacy of IQ Subtest Analysis to Understand Reading Performance for Culturally Diverse Groups.","authors":"Samuel O. Ortiz, Harriet N. Johnston, Gabrielle Wilcox, Stella L. Francis, Y. Tomes","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2014-V20-I1-5153","url":null,"abstract":"There is significant debate over the value and ethics of IQ testing for children, including those from diverse cultural groups, particularly in light of studies examining performance on various subtests that are uncovering important processing differences between cultural and linguistic groups (Sotelo-Dynega, Ortiz, Flanagan, & Chaplin, 2013). Whereas the predictive validity of IQ has been well established, the link between general intelligence and general academic achievement remains unenlightening, particularly with respect to educational interventions and remediation of academic skills. In light of the importance of understanding the needs of diverse groups within educational and instructional settings, the present study investigated the differential predictive validity of WISC-IV, Full Scale IQ, Index, and subtest scores for components of reading achievement for European American, African American, and Latino American children. Using data from the WISC-IVWIAT-II standardization sample, Full-Scale IQ, Index, and subtest scores were used to predict Word Reading and Reading Comprehension scores on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II) using forced-entry multiple regression analyses. In general, the results emphasized the importance of subtest analysis for understanding the nature of reading performance of all cultural groups. The amount of variance lost moving from subtest to Full Scale scores is greater in the African American group than the European American or Latino American groups. The amount of variance in components of reading performance accounted for by the Full Scale IQ differed amongst these groups. Findings are discussed in terms of the differences in the processes used in reading between these groups and point to the need for differentiated instruction and intervention to improve reading performance.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"151 1","pages":"45-54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76162983","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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}