This study primarily addressed two questions. The first question asked if individuals with learning disabilities in reading differ from individuals with other types of learning disabilities and from individuals with no clinical diagnosis on processing speed measured cognitively. The second question asked if subgroups within the two experimental groups with learning disabilities could be identified that conform to the Double Deficit Hypothesis (DDH) (Wolf & Bowers, 2000).Subjects were extracted from an existing data base that consisted of over 2000 individuals in the Mid-Western United States who had been referred for neuropsychological assessment, and were chosen for this study if they had been diagnosed with a learning disability or had received no clinical diagnosis. A total sample of 307 was available for the study, including 211 males and 96 females. The subjects were assigned to one of three groups by the researcher. One group consisted of individuals diagnosed with learning disabilities in reading, a second group consisted of individuals with learning disabilities in areas other than reading, and the third groups consisted of individuals who had received no clinical diagnosis. Scores on the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Cognitive Ability- Revised, and the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement- Revised were used for analysis.The investigation into the first question found that the three groups differed significantly on a cognitive measure of processing speed. The literature search had found that an achievement measure of processing speed discriminated between the three types of individuals. The current findings imply that processing speed problems may be linked to cognitive abilities as well as academic abilities. The results for the second question were not as clear. However, a cluster analysis of both the group with learning disabilities in reading and the group with learning disabilities in areas other than reading found processing speed to be an important factor in describing these individuals' difficulties. For the first group, Wolf and Bowers (2000) Double Deficit Hypothesis was supported for processing speed, but not for phonological processing. For the other group, the DDH was supported for processing speed and phonological processing, but not for the double deficit. / Department of Educational Psychology
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/179988 |
| Date | January 2002 |
| Creators | Reisetter, Tressa |
| Contributors | Gridley, Betty E. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | x, 107 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds