Search results

The purpose of the present chapter was to synthesize the research that directly compares children with and without reading disabilities on measures of working memory (WM). Working memory has considered at key element children success on reading performance and, therefore, the published literature was assessed. Twenty-eight (28) studies were included in the synthesis, which involved 207 effect sizes. The overall mean effect size estimate in favor of children without reading disabilities (RD) was –0.89 (SE=0.08). Effect sizes were submitted to a hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicated that children with RD were distinctively disadvantaged compared with average readers when memory manipulations required a transformation of information. Age, IQ, reading level, and domain specificity (verbal vs. visual/spatial measures) were not significant predictors of effect size estimates. The findings indicated that domain general WM differences persisted across age, and these differences operated independent of effect size differences in reading and IQ.

Students with learning disabilities (LD) have a wide range of academic needs. Since the passing of P.L. 94-142, significant research has been done on effective interventions for this group of students. Starting with the Learning Disabilities Research Institutes through the recent Handbook of Learning Disabilities, reviews of lines of research make several broad ideas about interventions clear. Primary among these is that students with LD can learn if provided with appropriate, effective instruction. Specifics about this idea and its implications are discussed in the following chapter.

The purpose of this chapter is to review our findings related to the question “Do outcomes related to dynamic assessment on a cognitive measure predict reading growth?” Our discussion related to the predictive validity of such procedures focused on outcomes related to a battery of memory and reading measures administered over a three-year period to 78 children (11.6 years) with and without reading disabilities (RD). Working memory (WM) tasks were presented under initial, gain, and maintenance testing conditions. The preliminary results suggested that maintenance testing conditions were significant moderators of comprehension and vocabulary growth, whereas probe scores and gain testing conditions were significant moderators of nonword fluency growth. Overall, the results suggested that the dynamic assessment of WM added significant variance in predicting later reading performance.

This chapter reviews research on math disabilities (MD) from two different points of view: Italian and American. Our goal is to gain consensus on identifying the cognitive deficits that underlie problems associated with MD as well as to provide an overview of some of the instructional approaches to remediate these deficits. The review outlines similarities and differences in the research perspectives between the two countries. Although the results show some consensus on the identification of MD and the cognitive mechanisms associated with this deficit (e.g., working memory), some differences remain between the two research perspectives (e.g., incidence of MD).

This chapter reviews some of our most recent research as to whether the cognitive performance of reading disabled and poor readers can be separated under dynamic assessment procedures. We describe results related to junior high school students (mean chronological age of 12 years) with reading disabilities, poor readers, and skilled readers. Students were administered intelligence, reading and math tests, and working memory (WM) measures (presented under static and dynamic testing conditions). The results thus far show that: (1) dynamic assessment measures (maintenance scores) contributed unique variance to predicting reading; and (2) poor readers and skilled readers were more likely to change and maintain gains under the dynamic testing conditions than students with reading disabilities. Some discussion was given to developing a valid classification of reading disabilities.

This chapter summarizes the quantitative literature on whether intervention outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD) are influenced by variations in IQ and reading level. The analysis clearly shows that a significant intelligence×reading level interaction emerges in treatment outcomes. Across a broad array of interventions it was found that studies which include samples with reading and IQ scores in the 16th and 25th percentile range (standard scores between 84 and 91) yield significantly higher effect sizes than studies that include samples in same low reading range but with higher IQ scores. An analysis of subsets of this data yield similar findings. Implications for definitions of learning disabilities that include measures of intelligence are discussed.

While deficits for students with learning disabilities (LD) are prevalent in almost all aspects of mathematics, difficulty in the application and understanding of problem-solving tasks are much more challenging to remediate than computational and procedural skills. Given the complexities involved in authentic problem-solving activities emphasized in current mathematics standards and the inherent challenges presented to students with LD, the importance of using strategies and techniques guided by evidence-based practices is paramount. Yet, ineffective instructional strategies for problem solving are still widespread in both mathematics curricula and available teacher resources. In this chapter, we provide a description of a commonly used ineffective problem-solving strategy (i.e., the keyword strategy), an overview of the keyword research, and an explanation for its ineffectiveness. We conclude with a description of three evidenced-based problem-solving approaches and practices that significantly improve the mathematical performance of students with LD.

There has been much discussion in the literature in recent years on the problems involved in the identification of children with reading disabilities. One of the most influential sources of knowledge in the field of learning disabilities is the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). This agency has typically been a major funding source for methodologically rigorous reading intervention research. Further, such research has contributed significantly to the validity of identifying children suspected of learning disabilities as “treatment resistors” (e.g. Vellutino et al., 1996). Yet, the NICHD has recently been the focus of some controversy. The purpose of this chapter was to synthesize NICHD funded research conducted over the past 10 years via a meta-analysis to determine what can be generalized from this body of research that can be applied to the identification of students with learning disabilities in reading. The results of the synthesis were that a prototypical intervention study has a mean effect size (ES) of 0.67 (SD=0.42), indicating that most interventions designed to increase reading skills were effective. The overall ES ranged, however, from 0.19 to 1.76, and therefore some criterion could be established for identifying treatment resistors. Performance below an overall ES of 0.25 was suggested as one of several criteria for identifying children with potential reading disabilities. However, this suggestion must be put in the context of intervention outcomes. The synthesis indicated that: (a) performance was more pronounced on skill or process measures (e.g. ES varies from 0.45 to 1.28 on measures of segmentation and pseudoword reading) than on measures of actual reading (ES varies from 0.17 to 0.60 on real word and comprehension measures); (b) the magnitude of effect sizes were more related to instructional activity (e.g. explicit instruction/practice) than to the content of instruction (e.g. type of phonics instruction); and (c) the bulk of intervention studies focused on a narrow range of reading behaviors (i.e. phonological awareness). Implications related to identification and sound teaching practice versus content training of reading instruction (e.g. phonological skills, comprehension skills) are discussed.

Evaluation of any given student's responsiveness to intervention depends not only on how effective the intervention is, but also whether the intervention was delivered as intended as well as in the appropriate format and according to the most useful schedule. These latter elements are referred to as treatment integrity and treatment intensity, respectively. The purpose of this chapter is to define and describe how treatment integrity and intensity can be incorporated in the evaluation of outcomes associated with individualized intervention delivery.