Journal of Learning Disabilities最新文献

{"title":"A Family-Based Intervention for Early Elementary Students With Reading and Behavioral Difficulties: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Garrett J Roberts, Philip Capin, Anna Handy, Brooke Coté, Zaira Jimenez","doi":"10.1177/00222194241263649","DOIUrl":"10.1177/00222194241263649","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We created and tested a family-based intervention with a sample of U.S. families of children in Grades 1 and 2 with reading and behavioral difficulties to investigate its impact on text comprehension. Developed with input from parents, reading experts, and behavior specialists, Family-RISE (Reading Intervention with Supports for Engagement) integrates evidence-based practices for enhancing students' knowledge of narrative texts with effective behavioral supports to maximize student engagement and minimize disruptive behaviors to help parents engage successfully in shared storybook reading. We assessed the effects of Family-RISE on children's narrative text comprehension using a multiple-baseline design. A functional relation was established between Family-RISE and narrative text comprehension, indicating Family-RISE substantially improved narrative text comprehension. Furthermore, nonoverlap of all pairs, Tau-<i>U</i>, and standard mean difference effect sizes were all considered large in favor of the intervention. Family members reported that the intervention was highly usable, feasible to implement, and socially valid. These findings underscore the promise of the Family-RISE intervention and the value of developing interventions that simultaneously support reading and behavior for children with co-occurring difficulties in these areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"343-358"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141876356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Global and Local Patterns of Reading-Related Cognitive and Ecological Variables in Chinese First-Grade Children: A Cross-Sectional Network Analysis.","authors":"Ziqian Wei, Lei Wang, Zhengye Xu, Lirong Luo, Xinyong Zhang, Ning Li, Duo Liu","doi":"10.1177/00222194241283198","DOIUrl":"10.1177/00222194241283198","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the current study, we tested a network model of reading difficulty by using state-of-the-art psychological network analysis. Four hundred and fifty-three Chinese first-grade children (about 38% female, mean age = 7.00, <i>SD</i> = 0.41) were divided into good (<i>n</i> = 154), competent (<i>n</i> = 147), and struggling (<i>n</i> = 152) readers based on their scores of Chinese character reading. The Extended Bayesian Information Criterion graphical lasso (EBICglasso) method was applied to estimate cross-sectional networks for the three groups. Each network included four cognitive nodes (homophone awareness, morphological structure awareness, phonological awareness, and vocabulary) and two ecological nodes (family socioeconomic status and the number of books at home). Chronological age and nonverbal intelligence were also included in the estimated networks. The global (i.e., global structure and global connectivity) and local patterns (i.e., the most important edges and nodes) in each network were reported. The network comparison results showed that global connectivity was significantly lower among struggling readers than for good readers, implying that a holistic impairment of bidirectional connections among multiple variables relates to the difficulty in learning to read. The theoretical and empirical implications and the significance of applying the network approach to reading research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"390-406"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142394318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predicting State Testing Proficiency with Preschool Assessments","authors":"Patrick Ehrman, Robert J. Duncan, Sara A. Schmitt, David J. Purpura","doi":"10.1177/00222194251364840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251364840","url":null,"abstract":"Many children in the United States fail to meet proficiency benchmarks on mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) tests in elementary school despite those tests being related to future outcomes. Thus, strategies are needed to identify and support children at risk for failing to reach proficiency in mathematics and ELA that consider multiple school readiness domains. The current study tested predictive relations between preschool skills and proficiency status on third and fourth-grade state tests for mathematics and ELA using data from 431 children. Three backward selection ordinal logistic regressions were run for each outcome using nine assessments covering mathematics, language, literacy, and executive function (EF) skills. Models using (a) fall scores, (b) spring scores, and (c) the average and change scores across the preschool year consistently identified early mathematics ( <jats:italic>ORs</jats:italic> from 1.34 to 2.32) and EF ( <jats:italic>ORs</jats:italic> from 1.23 to 1.40) as strong predictors of proficiency in both mathematics and ELA. Children’s vocabulary skills ( <jats:italic>ORs</jats:italic> from 1.29 to 1.55), but not early literacy skills, were consistently strong predictors of proficiency in ELA. Implications for policy and practice to improve children’s early learning outcomes are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144915536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Meta-Analytic Review of Spelling Interventions for Students With or At-Risk for Learning Disabilities","authors":"Brennan W. Chandler, Jessica R. Toste, Christina Novelli, Derek B. Rodgers, Emily Hardeman","doi":"10.1177/00222194251364836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251364836","url":null,"abstract":"Spelling is a vital academic skill that supports students’ writing and reading development (Kim, 2020). We conducted a comprehensive meta-analytic review of spelling interventions with students with or at-risk for learning disabilities (LDs) employing randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and single-case designs. Fifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria—39 group design and 20 single-case design (SCD) studies—comprising 2,229 students in Grades K–9, the vast majority of whom were described as with or at-risk for LDs, with only one study including general education students. The studies yielded 327 spelling and word reading effect sizes that were used to answer three research questions regarding the overall average impact of the interventions on spelling and word reading outcomes, differential effects of the spelling intervention approach, and characteristics that may moderate effects. We ran four meta-analytic models on spelling interventions’ effects on spelling and reading outcomes, conducted subgroup analyses on group designs for different spelling approaches, and ran meta-regression models with five covariates on group designs to examine moderating effects. Publication bias analyses were also conducted. Results indicated that group design spelling interventions had a small but significant effect on spelling ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.26, 0.40]) and word reading ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.37]) outcomes, while SCDs had a large and significant impact on spelling (between-case standardized mean difference [BC-SMD] <jats:italic>=</jats:italic> 2.47, 95% CI = [1.82, 3.13]) and word reading (BC-SMD = 1.52, 95% CI = [0.83, 2.21]) outcomes. Furthermore, results demonstrate that group design spelling interventions employing whole word study ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.56, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.71]) and multilinguistic ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.60]) approaches benefit spelling outcomes, while phonemic approaches to spelling intervention transfer to word reading outcomes ( <jats:italic>g</jats:italic> = 0.45, 95% CI = [0.35, 0.55]). Findings highlight the need for systematic replication of spelling interventions to further understand the impact on writing and reading outcomes for students with LD.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144915535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"SLD Models and Assessment Data Sources: Effects on Identification and Confidence","authors":"Kathrin E. Maki, Courtenay A. Barrett, Matthew K. Burns, Daniel B. Hajovsky, Garrett Stevens","doi":"10.1177/00222194251358502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251358502","url":null,"abstract":"This study experimentally examined whether specific learning disability (SLD) identification model (i.e., ability-achievement discrepancy [Ab-Ach], response-to-intervention [RtI], and patterns of strengths and weaknesses [PSW]) was associated with SLD identification decisions, the confidence in the decision, and the perceived importance of different assessment data sources in identifying SLD. Participants ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 264) reviewed a psychoeducational evaluation vignette and determined whether the student should be identified with SLD based on the identification criteria for their randomly assigned condition (i.e., Ab-Ach, RtI, or PSW). Results indicated that type of SLD identification model used did not predict SLD identification decision or the confidence in the decision. However, participant race was related to SLD identification decisions, and participant race, national certification, and years of experience were related to decision confidence. School psychologists rated progress monitoring data, standardized tests, and educational record reviews as the most salient assessment data sources in identifying SLD.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144898759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Technical Features of Sentence-Level Curriculum-Based Measures and Language Sample Analysis for Students With Writing Difficulties.","authors":"Emily A Reno,Seohyeon Choi,Kristen L McMaster,Emma Shanahan","doi":"10.1177/00222194251361902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251361902","url":null,"abstract":"Given oral language's role in writing proficiency and to address measurement issues in oral and written language, we trialed complementary scoring metrics in language sample analysis (LSA) with the sentence-level Picture Word Writing Curriculum-Based Measure (CBM-W). Using the Picture Word CBM-W samples of 123 students with writing difficulties, we investigated (1a) alternate form reliability, (1b) criterion-related validity with existing Picture Word CBM-W metrics, (2) criterion-related validity with a standardized written expression measure, and (3) sensitivity to growth from fall to spring for LSA and Picture Word CBM-W scoring mechanisms. Pearson product-moment correlations, Spearman's correlations, and Bonferroni-corrected paired-samples t-tests revealed two promising LSA metrics with evidence of technical quality and sensitivity to growth as a complementary scoring mechanism for Picture Word CBM-W: mean length of T-Unit in morphemes (MLTU-M) using the mean of two forms in the fall, and number of different words (NDW) using the mean of two forms in fall and spring. Results support the role of oral language in sentence-level writing proficiency, as well as MLTU-M and NDW as complementary scoring mechanisms to provide more specific estimates of oral language skills in grammar/morphosyntax and semantics/lexical diversity not possible with current Picture Word CBM-W scoring mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"18 1","pages":"222194251361902"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144819986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Educators' Perspectives of Working Conditions in Inclusive Elementary Schools.","authors":"David DeMatthews, Elizabeth Bettini, Bonnie Billingsley, Emily M Burns","doi":"10.1177/00222194251325857","DOIUrl":"10.1177/00222194251325857","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Educators need supportive working conditions to fulfill their responsibilities to students, families, and colleagues. Given the crucial role of working conditions in teacher effectiveness, we sought to understand educators' (including general educators, paraeducators, specaial educators, and principals) perspectives about their working conditions as they included students with disabilities. We analyzed 28 primarily qualitative studies, conducted between 1998 and 2023, using Conservation of Resources (COR) theory as a framework to study their working conditions. We analyzed their responsibilities in inclusive schools (e.g., instruction, collaboration), and the resources that were provided or needed to fulfill those responsibilities (e.g., time, professional development). We found inclusion often required substantial responsibilities for educators; however, they often lacked needed resources, leaving them feeling stretched thin as they tried to meet students' needs. These findings have implications for supporting educators in inclusive schools.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"304-324"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185898/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143651421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reframing the Most Important Special Education Policy Debate in 50 Years: <i>How</i> Versus <i>Where</i> to Educate Students With Disabilities in America's Schools.","authors":"Douglas Fuchs, Allison F Gilmour, Jeanne Wanzek","doi":"10.1177/00222194251315196","DOIUrl":"10.1177/00222194251315196","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For decades, there have been competing visions of how and where to educate students with disabilities (SWDs) in America's K-12 schools. One conception is that general classrooms can accommodate the learning needs of virtually all children. A second approach calls for multiple placement options. Over the years, the context in which this disagreement has played out has changed as educators have shifted from a reliance on special classes to trust in general classes to enthusiasm for intensive instruction beyond the general class. Such variation in practice has influenced how researchers have explored relations between SWDs' placement and their academic performance. Some of this research has been weak, producing unreliable findings. Some has generated more trustworthy results. All stakeholders would benefit from distinguishing the weaker studies from the stronger ones. Yet, to date, there has been an absence of such effort. In this paper, we provide a concise history of placement-achievement research and then review evidence spanning 50 years, bearing on how and where to educate SWDs. We conclude that the research on <i>where to teach</i> has generally been weak and inconclusive; the research on <i>how to teach</i>, stronger and more certain. Implications for educating SWDs are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"257-273"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143392316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Supporting Teachers' Data-Based Individualization of Early Writing Instruction: An Efficacy Trial.","authors":"Kristen L McMaster, Erica S Lembke, Emma Shanahan, Seohyeon Choi, Jechun An, Christopher Schatschneider, McKinzie D Duesenberg-Marshall, Seyma Birinci, Elizabeth McCollom, Carol Garman, Kim Moore","doi":"10.1177/00222194241300324","DOIUrl":"10.1177/00222194241300324","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a multiyear, multisite, randomized control trial, we examined the effects of comprehensive professional development designed to support teachers' data-based instruction (DBI) for students with intensive early writing needs. Teachers (<i>N</i> = 154; primarily special educators or intervention specialists) were assigned randomly to a treatment group (<i>n</i> = 76), in which they received tools, learning, and coaching to support their DBI implementation over 20 weeks, or to a control group (<i>n</i> = 78). Students either received DBI in early writing (<i>n</i> = 155) from treatment teachers or their usual writing instruction (<i>n</i> = 154) from control teachers. Treatment teachers outperformed controls on measures of DBI knowledge and skills (<i>d</i> = 1.57) and self-efficacy for writing instruction (<i>d</i> = .94), and treatment students outperformed controls on proximal and distal writing outcomes (<i>d</i>s = .14-.29). Student characteristics (grade, special education status, English learner status, and race/ethnicity) did not moderate intervention effects. We discuss findings in terms of the importance of supporting students with intensive learning needs, the efficacy and feasibility of implementing DBI-TLC, and implications for pre- and in-service teacher training and support.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":" ","pages":"287-303"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142796165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring Time-Use Profiles in Digital Mathematics Assessments for Students With Learning Disabilities","authors":"Xin Wei","doi":"10.1177/00222194251347965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251347965","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the time-use patterns of students with learning disabilities during digital mathematics assessments and explores the role of extended time accommodations (ETA) in shaping these patterns. Using latent profile analysis, four distinct time-use profiles were identified separately for students with and without ETA. “Initial Focusers” spend more time on simpler initial items and less time on later, more difficult items, exhibiting high omission rates and low performance. “Rapid Progressors” complete assessments quickly but exhibit shallow engagement across all items, achieving low performance. “Diligent Time Maximizers” allocate time effortfully across items but often run out of time on the last two items when ETA was not granted, achieving the second-highest scores. “Efficient Prioritizers,” excel in strategic time management, score the highest, and report strong persistence and interest in math. The findings reveal that ETA supports students who adopt meticulous strategies, such as Diligent Time Maximizers, but does not universally address the challenges faced by other profiles. This study underscores the need for tailored interventions and accommodations aligned with individual time-use profiles to foster equitable and effective learning and assessment environments.","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144328814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}