No description available.

A large number of individuals who are identified as having learning disabilities have deficits in written expression. Existing theory and research indicate that for those individuals oral expression not only precedes, but also exceeds their written expression capabilities. As a result, dictation has been investigated as an accommodation for these individuals. Research in this area indicates that dictation does tend to increase quality, length, and rate of production of written expression. This mode, however, has a number of shortcomings, including difficulties caused by social skills deficits and a loss of independence. Additionally, for universities providing this accommodation, the annual cost of providing a transcription service is high. Speech recognition has the potential to overcome these shortcomings, but presently little research has been conducted to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of this mode of writing. The purpose of this study was to examine the compensatory effectiveness of oral expression through the use of continuous speech recognition technology on the written composition performance of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. This writing mode was compared to a popular accommodation involving oral expression, using a human transcriber to create a verbatim transcription, and to a common visual-motor method of writing, using a keyboard without assistance. Analysis of the data revealed that students with learning disabilities in the area of written expression wrote significantly higher quality essays at a faster rate using the transcription and speech recognition modes of writing than they did using the keyboarding method of writing. There was no significant difference in the length of essays across the three treatment groups. This study suggests that current continuous speech recognition technology can offer postsecondary students with learning disabilities a method to write that is superior to keyboarding as indicated by measures of quality and rate of production. Since the speech recognition technology does not have the limitations of the transcription process (i.e., loss of independence and high cost), it may be the best alternative for postsecondary students with learning disabilities in the area of written expression to maximize their oral language strengths to more efficiently produce better quality writing. / Ph. D.

Feng, Xiangjun. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 178-184). / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstracts also in Chinese.

Since the multicultural movement, disability theorists have called to understand disability as a marginalized and socially constructed identity (Olkin, 2002). The current study aimed to adopt this approach with individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD) to assess the psychological ramifications of LD stigma and discrimination. Previous work has begun to explore the links between LD discrimination and psychological health (Geiger & Brewster, 2018); however, the role of mediating variables remains unexplored. The current study applied Minority Stress Theory (Meyer, 1995, 2003) with a national sample of 227 adults with LDs to assess the potential mediating roles LD-specific minority stressors have on the relationship between LD discrimination and psychological distress grounded in the integrative mediation framework (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Through bivariate correlations and structural equation modeling, the study examined relations between five variables: one distal stressor (i.e., LD discrimination), and three proximal stressors (i.e., expectations of LD stigma, internalized LD stigma, concealment of LD identity) with mental health outcomes (i.e., psychological distress). Results provide support for the adaptation of minority stress theory with adult LD populations through model fit, in addition to support from hypothesized bivariate correlations between variables of interest. Findings indicate partial support for direct effects, with LD discrimination demonstrating the most robust effect on psychological distress and all three proximal stressors. In terms of mediating variables, findings do not support the three hypothesized indirect effects of proximal stressors. Clinical, theoretical, and research implications and future directions are explored.

Two models for learning disabilities (LD) identification are explicitly allowed in federal regulations: (a) ability-achievement discrepancy and (b) response to intervention. Dissatisfaction with both models has led to calls for a third model, which identifies a pattern of cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW model) as a marker of LD. However, little empirical research has investigated this proposed model. This study investigated two proposed approaches for implementing a PSW model: (a) the concordance/discordance model (C/DM) and (b) the cross battery assessment (XBA) approach. All 139 participants demonstrated inadequate response to a Tier 2 intervention in sixth or seventh grade. Following Tier 2 intervention, participants completed a comprehensive battery of cognitive and academic tests. I utilized results to empirically categorize each participant as either meeting or not meeting LD criteria according to the two PSW approaches at different academic deficit cut points. Resulting group status was utilized to determine: (a) LD identification rates, (b) agreement between approaches, and (c) the relative academic performance and sociodemographic characteristics of resulting groups. The number of participants that met LD criteria varied widely, dependent upon the approach and deficit cut point (range: 10.8% - 47.5%). More participants met criteria for both approaches at higher deficit cut points. More participants met C/DM criteria than XBA criteria at similar cut points. Agreement between the two approaches was generally low. Kappa ranged from -.04 - .56 when comparing classification decisions across different iterations of the two approaches. Comparisons of groups that met and did not meet C/DM and XBA criteria on external academic and sociodemographic variables were largely null. The results highlight several potential challenges to widespread implementation of a PSW model. Both approaches identified a low percentage of students, raising questions of efficiency. Low agreement is an inevitable result of measurement error and implementation differences between the two approaches. Such variability in classification decisions suggests the models may be incompatible and should be independently validated. Further, the failure to find qualitative differences in academic needs between groups that met and did not meet LD criteria for either approach raises questions about the utility of the identification model. / text

This thesis is an expansion of an ongoing examination of gist and verbatim memory in young adults with language-learning disabilities (LLD) using the DRM paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). This study uses lists based on situation semantic features in addition to DRM lists based on backwards associative strength (BAS), which were categorized as strong-, mid-, and low-BAS (Stadler, Roediger, & McDermott, 1999). Items in each list (e.g., bacon, toast, cereal, muffin) related to a non-presented word (e.g., breakfast): the critical lure (CL). BAS is a measure of the likelihood that a list item will elicit the CL. Thirty young adults participated in this study and were divided into three groups: true LLD, compensated LLD, and typically developing (TD). Participants listened to word lists and verbally recalled the words they remembered hearing. Accurate recall was an indicator of verbatim memory; CL recall was an indicator of gist memory. The true LLD group recalled CL at a significantly higher rate than the other groups in the case of the situation lists; additionally, the compensated LLD group recalled CL for the low-BAS lists at a significantly higher rate than the other groups. These findings suggest that the LLD participants may process semantic information differently or may rely on gist memory to a greater extent than the TD controls. Results also indicated list type differences for both verbatim and gist recalls, supporting the effects of both semantic features and BAS together with other factors. / text

The purpose of this study was to develop a screening battery that could be used as a pre-referral method of identifying students in need of formal assessment for special education services. Further, the battery was designed to provide guidance regarding what classification should be specifically explored in assessment. The screening battery under study included measures of phonological proficiency, self-concept, social perception, and moral reasoning. These variables were measured by the G-F-W Sound-Symbol Tests (Spelling of Sounds Subtest) (Goldman, Fristoe, & Woodcock, 1974), the Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985), My Classmates and Me (a sociometric instrument), and the Moral Reasoning Scale for Children (Daniel, 1992). Research has demonstrated that the constructs measured by these instruments are related in differential degrees to classification status of students.Battery scores of 104 subjects (mean age=10.3 years) were cluster analyzed using Ward's method. Once distinct profiles were identified, they were compared to behavioral and educational histories of subjects to determine if the patterns were related to pre-determined classifications. Step-wise discriminant function analyses were conducted using measures of cognitive ability, reading achievement, emotional adjustment and attention as discriminatingvariables in an effort to externally validate the cluster solution.Cluster analysis of the four battery components yielded four clusters with distinctive profiles. Pair-wise comparisons of the four clusters indicated each was significantly different from the others based on performance on the screening battery (p<.001). These groups were identified as: Low Achievement, Pervasive Dysfunction, Normal, and Low Cognitive Ability. Although these cluster groups were not found to be strictly parallel to previously identified classifications, they were differentiated to varying degrees on several dimensions identified through discriminant analyses.The "Normal Group" was adequately differentiated from the other three groups on external validation indices. This suggested that the screening battery, which was used to establish groups, could predict the need for special education services of the subjects in the non-normal groups. / Department of Educational Psychology

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2003. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 35-38).

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2004. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 35-38).

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2003. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 35-38).