This thesis is a pilot study of ongoing research concerning the nature of impairments in adults with language learning disorders. The current study assessed lexical-semantic organization in14 adults with language learning disorders (LLD), ages 18;9 to 24;3 and 14 adults with no history of language impairment (TD) matched for age, gender, and education with a list recall task adapted from Watson, Balota, and Roediger (2001). All adults were enrolled in a four-year university. No significant differences were found on accuracy of list recall in LLD and TD. Similar to previous research, list recall for semantically- related words was higher in accuracy than for phonologically- related words for both LLD and TD participants. All participants were more likely to accurately recall the words at the beginning and at end of the lists. The LLD group showed a positive correlation between oral language and phonological processing performance with accuracy of recall. These results suggest that adults with language learning disorders who are enrolled in a four-year university are able to implement strategies that compensate for any language difference that may exist. Also, the similarities in patterns and accuracy of list recall suggest similar lexical-semantic organization in adults with LLD and TD. / 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

Strategy instruction can improve memory performance, but some training programs are more effective than others. Some scholars propose that a key element to boosting the benefits from training programs is enhancing or emphasizing self-regulatory factors, such as knowledge about memory, beliefs about ability, or motivational factors. Research supporting this claim evidence adds that programs that enhance trainees’ confidence in their abilities improve memory performance and that multifactorial programs are more effective than strategy-training-only programs. Setting performance goals and receiving feedback are two self-regulatory factors known to relate to memory performance that may sometimes be included in some training programs. However, previous research has not directly compared the effectiveness of strategy instruction with and without goal-setting and performance feedback elements. This was the purpose of the present research: We compared strategy instruction with goal-setting and positively-framed feedback across three assessments of memory performance, strategy use, and task commitment. Participants were 48 university students who were randomly assigned to two conditions: All participants watched a brief memory strategy video, but participants in the Strat+GFB condition set goals for their memory performance and received positively-framed objective performance feedback and participants in the StratOnly condition did not. Research assistants conducted the experimental procedures individually with participants in 1-hour-long Zoom video calls. Primary outcome measures (memory performance, strategy use, and task commitment) were assessed three times, once before and twice after strategy instruction, with or without goal-setting and feedback between each test, depending on condition assignment. Shopping list recall tests were used to assess memory performance, and the number of to-be-recalled stimuli increased at each testing occasion as 15 additional items were added at each trial. Participants recalled more items, but a smaller percentage of the items, over time, and this pattern was not different for the experimental conditions. Additionally, number of strategies used, as self-reported on a retrospective checklist, increased from before to after strategy instruction. Importantly, the Strat+GFB condition maintained levels of commitment to the memory tests across the three trials, whereas the StratOnly condition reported drops in their task commitment. Study results emphasize that including self-regulatory factors, such as setting goals and receiving feedback, may increase commitment to a task, however those benefits may not immediately translate to better memory performance when training and testing is part of a brief, single experimental session. We suggest that future research evaluate a multiday memory intervention with the addition of goal-setting and feedback. Results of this study suggest that including goal-setting and feedback as part of a training program may benefit trainees’ commitment, which we speculate could aid individuals in maintaining persistent effort despite challenges and ultimately lead to better performance over a longer term.