当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Learn. Disab. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
How Specific Are Learning Disabilities?
Journal of Learning Disabilities ( IF 3.407 ) Pub Date : 2021-01-14 , DOI: 10.1177/0022219420982981
Robin L Peterson 1 , Lauren M McGrath 2 , Erik G Willcutt 3 , Janice M Keenan 2 , Richard K Olson 3 , Bruce F Pennington 2
Affiliation  

Despite historical emphasis on "specific" learning disabilities (SLDs), academic skills are strongly correlated across the curriculum. Thus, one can ask how specific SLDs truly are. To answer this question, we used bifactor models to identify variance shared across academic domains (academic g), as well as variance unique to reading, mathematics, and writing. Participants included 686 children aged 8 to 16. Although the sample was overselected for learning disabilities, we intentionally included children across the full range of individual differences in this study in response to growing recognition that a dimensional, quantitative view of SLD is more accurate than a categorical view. Confirmatory factor analysis identified five academic domains (basic reading, reading comprehension, basic math, math problem-solving, and written expression); spelling clustered with basic reading and not writing. In the bifactor model, all measures loaded significantly on academic g. Basic reading and mathematics maintained variance distinct from academic g, consistent with the notion of SLDs in these domains. Writing did not maintain specific variance apart from academic g, and evidence for reading comprehension-specific variance was mixed. Academic g was strongly correlated with cognitive g (r = .72) but not identical to it. Implications for SLD diagnosis are discussed.

中文翻译:

学习障碍有多具体?

尽管历史上强调“特定”学习障碍 (SLD),但学术技能在整个课程中都具有很强的相关性。因此,人们可以问具体的 SLD 到底有多具体。为了回答这个问题,我们使用双因子模型来识别跨学术领域(学术 g)共享的差异,以及阅读、数学和写作独有的差异。参与者包括 686 名 8 至 16 岁的儿童。尽管样本因学习障碍而被过度选择,但我们有意将具有所有个体差异的儿童纳入本研究,以响应人们越来越认识到 SLD 的维度、定量视图比分类视图。验证性因素分析确定了五个学术领域(基础阅读、阅读理解、基础数学、数学问题解决、和书面表达);拼写与基本阅读相结合,而不是写作。在双因子模型中,所有测量都显着加载了学术 g。基础阅读和数学保持与学术 g 不同的差异,与这些领域中的 SLD 概念一致。除了学术 g 之外,写作没有保持特定的差异,并且阅读理解特定差异的证据是混合的。学术 g 与认知 g (r = .72) 密切相关,但不完全相同。讨论了 SLD 诊断的意义。除了学术 g 之外,写作没有保持特定的差异,并且阅读理解特定差异的证据是混合的。学术 g 与认知 g (r = .72) 密切相关,但不完全相同。讨论了 SLD 诊断的意义。除了学术 g 之外,写作没有保持特定的差异,并且阅读理解特定差异的证据是混合的。学术 g 与认知 g (r = .72) 密切相关,但不完全相同。讨论了 SLD 诊断的意义。
更新日期:2021-01-14
down
wechat
bug