WISC and WISC-R Profiles of Learning Disabled Children: A Review

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis C. Dudley-Marling ◽  
Nancy J. Kaufman ◽  
Sara G. Tarver
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Verbal Iq ◽  
Verbal Performance

It has been widely assumed that learning disabled children exhibit a characteristic WISC or WISC-R profile. This paper reviews 24 studies investigating the performance of disabled learners on these instruments. Three questions were addressed in the review of these studies: 1) Is high Performance IQ-low Verbal IQ characteristic of learning disabled children? 2) Do learning disabled subjects exhibit more WISC (or WISC-R) subtest scatter than normal learners? and 3) Do learning disabled subjects exhibit a characteristic WISC(-R) profile? The evidence regarding the first two questions was inconclusive although Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies and subtest variability may not be uncommon in normal children. The evidence does suggest that LD children, as a group, exhibit a characteristic WISC(-R) profile whereas few individual LD children actually conform to this pattern. It was concluded that WISC(-R) profiles may not be useful for differential diagnosis of learning disabled students.

Comparison of the WISC-R Patterns of Children of Average and Exceptional Ability

1983 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 539-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. P. J. Schmidt ◽  
D. H. Saklofske
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Retarded ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Exceptional Groups ◽  
Diagnostic Usefulness ◽  
Verbal Performance

This study investigated the diagnostic usefulness of WISC-R Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies, subtest scatter, and Bannatyne's subtest recategorizations with educationally normal and exceptional groups of children. The subjects for this study were four groups of 74 learning disabled, 24 mentally retarded, 94 gifted, and 85 educationally normal children. No significant differences in discrepancies in Verbal-Performance IQs occurred among the four groups although learning disabled children more often showed Performance > Verbal discrepancies. No differences were found between the samples in the amount of subtest scatter. Group differences were noted in the patterns of scores on Bannatyne's recategorizations.

Strategy Training: A Need for Clarification

1987 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie U. deBettencourt
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Training Needs ◽  
Strategy Training ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Precise Understanding

On the basis of research in the field of learning disabilities it has been concluded that many learning disabled students can be characterized as strategy-deficient, inactive learners. However, a precise understanding of strategy training procedures is frequently obscured by researchers. The term “strategy training” needs to be defined more clearly so that the approaches are understood more universally. In this article I discuss the rationale for strategy training interventions with learning disabled children, describe three approaches that are currently being studied in the field, and discuss the issues that arise.

Reliability of Standardized Assessment Instruments When Used with Learning Disabled Children

1978 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monte D. Smith ◽  
Carl M. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Basic Assumption ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Standardized Assessment ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Normative Population ◽  
Affective Assessment

Many practitioners and researchers in the learning disability field work under the basic assumption that the various assessment instruments commonly used with learning disabled populations exhibit the same reliability when used with learning disabled students as when used with a more normative population. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption by examining the reliabilities of several tests of intellectual, academic, and affective assessment when administered to learning disabled students.

A Look at Mainstreaming in Light of Children's Attitudes toward the Handicapped

1978 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 1019-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Parish ◽  
Robert L. Ohlsen ◽  
Joycelyn G. Parish
Keyword(s):  
Emotionally Disturbed ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Personal Attribute ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Grade School ◽  
School Students ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Handicapped Children ◽  
Physically Handicapped ◽  
Best Fit

Mainstreaming is a legislative reality, yet there is still a question as to whether non-handicapped students are prepared for it. In the present study 131 grade school students were each asked to select from the Personal Attribute Inventory for Children 15 adjectives which best fit three groups of handicapped children as well as normal children. The groups were described in a hierarchical fashion: “normal children” were rated most favorably, then “physically handicapped children,” “learning disabled children,” and “emotionally disturbed children.”

Learning disabled children's conversational competence: responses to inadequate messages

1980 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mavis Donahue ◽  
Ruth Pearl ◽  
Tanis Bryan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Referential Communication ◽  
Social Knowledge ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Response Latencies ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Conversational Competence

ABSTRACTThis study examined learning disabled children's understanding of conversational rules for initiating the repair of a communicative breakdown. Learning disabled and normal children in grades 1 through 8 played the listener role in a referential communication task requiring them to select referents based on messages varying in informational adequacy. Learning disabled children were less likely to request clarification of inadequate messages and, consequently, made fewer correct referent choices than normal children. Only young learning disabled girls were less able than their normal age-mates to appraise message adequacy. Analyses of response latencies and request type also suggest that the failure to request clarification cannot be attributed solely to linguistic deficits. Results are discussed in terms of the relative contributions of syntactic-semantic ability and social knowledge to conversational competence.

Laterality Preference Patterns of Learning Disabled Children

1978 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 869-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil H. Schwartz ◽  
Raymond S. Dean
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Analysis ◽  
Group Membership ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Stepwise Discriminant Analysis ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Orthogonal Contrasts ◽  
Preference Patterns

This study concerned the prediction of group membership of 40 learning disabled and 40 normal children on the basis of preference for laterality of the children and of their parents. A stepwise discriminant analysis showed maternal and paternal lateral preferences could correctly identify approximately 85% of the cases. Orthogonal contrasts showed that, although children themselves did not differ in the degree of laterality, parents of learning disabled children were significantly more bilateral in their preference patterns than normals.

Developmental Differences in Praxis in Learning-Disabled and Normal Children and Adults

1994 ◽  
Vol 78 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1219-1228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet L. Poole ◽  
Colleen M. Schneck
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Verbal Command

Gestures made on tasks in response to verbal command or to imitation and on tasks involving axial and distal movements were compared for groups of learning-disabled and normal children and adults. The 15 learning-disabled children and 15 adults scored lower than the 15 normal children and 15 adults on all tasks. All groups scored higher on imitation than on verbal command and scored similarly on the axial and distal tasks. The findings from this study suggest that it would be worthwhile to test the hypothesis that dyspraxic behaviors may persist into adulthood.

A Comparison of the Proportional Reasoning Abilities of Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled Children and Adolescents

1983 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-320
Author(s):  
Rose Sinicrope ◽  
Lori Bell Mick
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
School District ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Proportional Reasoning ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Reasoning Abilities

Noelting's (1980a, 1980b) three parallel instruments on proportional reasoning—two presenting problem-solving tasks in the ratio and division interpretations of fractions and one presenting the tasks in the purely symbolic form of numerical fractions—were administered to 6 female and 41 male learning disabled students, grades four through eight. Performances on the instruments were then compared to the performances of 120 non-learning disabled students in grades five through nine of the same school district. The purpose of the study was to determine whether learning disabled students differed in their development of proportional reasoning and whether their disability was in the use of symbols and language and not in their ability to solve proportional problems. Developmental scalograms, PPR>0.93, resulted in support of the hypothesis that the proportional reasoning abilities of the learning disabled student are developmental and thus not unlike those of the non-learning disabled student. A comparison of the three means for the two groups revealed a reversal in performance with the learning disabled students more successful at problem solving and the non-learning disabled students more successful at the purely symbolic form of numerical fractions. Unlike the non-learning disabled students, the learning disabled students' inability to express a strategy did not indicate an inability to solve the problem.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document