没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
Differential ability scales: Profiles of learning-disabled subty...
需积分: 9 0 下载量 92 浏览量
2021-06-29
20:35:27
上传
评论
收藏 825KB PDF 举报
温馨提示
Differential ability scales: Profiles of learning-disabled subtypes Psychology in rhe Schools Volume 30. Januury IY93 DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES: PROFILES OF LEARNING-DISABLED SUBTYPES] DAVID E. McINTOSH Oklahoma State University BETTY E. GKIDLEY Ball State University The purpose of this study was to determine whether distinct subgroups of children with learning disabilities could be identified using a single, recently developed instru- ment - the Differential Ability Scales
资源推荐
资源详情
资源评论
Psychology
in
rhe
Schools
Volume
30.
Januury
IY93
DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES:
PROFILES
OF
LEARNING-DISABLED SUBTYPES]
DAVID
E. McINTOSH
Oklahoma State University
BETTY
E. GKIDLEY
Ball State University
The purpose
of
this study was to determine whether distinct subgroups
of
children
with learning disabilities could be identified using a single, recently developed instru-
ment
-
the Differential Ability Scales (DAS). Ward’s method
of
cluster analysis was
used
to
group
83
school-verified children with learning disabilities from the standard-
ization sample. The following six subgroups were identified: (a) generalized, (b) high
functioning, (c) normal, (d) underachievement, (e) borderline, and
(f)
dyseidetic. Not
all subgroups displayed the expected discrepancy between intelligence and achieve-
ment associated with the current definitions
of
I.D. In subsequent discriminant analyses,
both achievement and diagnostic subtests were necessary for accuracy in classifica-
tion. This study provided evidence
of
the DAS’s ability to diagnose the learning disabled
differentially and provided distinct profiles for LD subgroups. Administration
of
the
diagnostic subtests along with achievement subtests can provide the clinician with
valuable diagnostic information for LD.
When a new psychoeducational instrument appears, a logical question arises: “HOW
can this test be used to identify students with learning disabilities?” The Differential
Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott,
1990)
has recently become available for general use for
assessment
of
children from ages 2% through
17
years. The DAS was constructed to
reflect the content and organization of the British Ability Scales (Elliott, Murray,
&
Pearson,
1979).
Because of the broad age range, normative structure, and breadth of
content, the DAS should have
a
variety of applications
in
school and clinical settings
and in research (Elliott,
1990).
The DAS differs from other cognitive measures in that
(a) the General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score (Composite score) incorporates only
subtests that are salient measures
of
“g” having been found to have substantial loadings
on that factor (Elliott,
1990);
(b) subtests measuring specific processing skills (diagnostic
subtests) are not included in determining the total composite score; and (c) achievement
measures are included that were normed on the same standardization sample as the
cognitive measures.
The DAS’s author indicates that the structure
of
the instrument provides a sound
basis for profile analysis by measuring a wide range of abilities reliably and distinctively.
However, the diagnostic usefulness of the DAS has yet to be determined. If distinct
profiles for separate learning-disabled subgroups can be identified, the efficacy of the
DAS
in the diagnostic process will be supported.
As yet there do not appear to be any other studies examining the performance of
children with learning disabilities on the DAS. Although research is lacking
on
the DAS,
there has been some relevant research using the British Ability Scales (Elliott et al.,
1979).
‘The standardization edition
of
the DAS and data therefrom have been used with the permission
of
The
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to David McIntosh,
322
N.
Murray, Dept.
Psychological Corporation. This standardization edition may differ from the final published edition.
of
Applied Behavioral Studies in Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
OK
74078-0254.
12
Mclntosh
and
Gridley
Generalization of the results of research using the British Ability Scales (BAS) to the
DAS is somewhat limited; however, the two instruments do share some features that
allow for comparisons.
For example, Thomson (1982) classified 83 children with dyslexia and reading retard-
ation into three subtypes and discussed the BAS subtest profiles specific to each subtype.
The children were categorized into an “auditory-linguistic,” “visuo-spatial,”
or
“mixed”
group based on their reading and spelling errors. Thomson noted that the visuo-spatial
group scored less well than the auditory-linguistic group on Speed of Information Proc-
essing, Block Design Level, Block Design Power, and Immediate and Delayed Visual
Recall. Few differences were found between the groups on the Rotation of Letter-Like
Forms and Recall of Digits subtests. In addition, there were no large or significant
VisuaWerbal differences between
IQs
among the subtypes.
No
descriptions
or
compari-
sons were made between the mixed group and the other two groups. Overall, Thomson
concluded that subtest profiles of children with learning disabilities have important
diagnostic implications and children scoring poorly on Speed of Information Process-
ing, Immediate and Delayed Visual Recall, Recall of Digits, and Word Reading dem-
onstrated profiles typical of children with reading disabilities.
A more recent study by Tyler and Elliott (1988) cluster-analyzed 121 children with
dyslexia using test scores on the BAS. Three groups were identified:
(a)
30 children with
mixed visuo-spatial and linguistic processing problems who scored low on Visualiza-
tion
of
Cubes, Immediate Visual Recall, Recall of Designs, Recall of Digits, and Word
Definitions; (b) 52 children with sequential processing problems who scored lowest on
Speed of Information Processing, Immediate Visual Recall, Recall of Digits, and Word
Reading, and (c)
39
children with problems in holistic retrieval of information character-
ized as displaying low scores on Recall of Designs, Word Definitions, and Word Reading.
The purpose of the present study was to determine whether distinct subgroups of
children with learning disabilities could be identified using the Differential Ability Scales.
Using children identified as learning disabled based upon a previous psychoeducational
evaluation, an attempt was made to investigate the utility of the DAS in providing distinct
profiles for specific learning-disabled subgroups. Based upon sample pattern and/or level
of performance on the DAS subtests the following research questions were studied:
Do distinct LD subtypes emerge when the subjects are clustered on
a
variety
of intellectual, diagnostic, and achievement dimensions of the DAS?
If
so,
what is the
nature of such subgroups?
If distinct LD subtypes emerge from the DAS data analysis, do the subgroups
differ in their profiles on intellectual, diagnostic, and achievement dimensions? If
so,
what is the nature of each profile?
1.
2.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects included 83 children with learning disabilities between the ages of
6
years,
8
months and 17 years,
5
months
(M=
11.5, SD=2.5) used for the standardiza-
tion of the Differential Ability Scales. Demographics for the 83 selected LD cases from
the DAS standardization sample are presented in Table
1.
Of the 83 LD subjects,
15
were females and
68
were males. The subjects were predominantly Caucasian, with 24%
representing minority groups. The subjects were independently classified as LD by their
local school districts, Although states and districts classified children as LD based upon
DAS-LD
Subtypes
13
Table
1
Demographics for the
83
Selected
LD
Cases from the DAS Standardization Sample
Age Frequency Cumulative Frequency
Yo
Cumulative
Yo
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
17
1
7
6
16
10
7
7
9
18
1
1
1
8
14
30
40
47
54
63
81
82
83
1.20
8.43
7.23
19.28
12.05
8.43
8.43
10.84
21.60
1.20
1.20
1.20
9.63
16.86
36.14
48.19
56.62
65.05
75.89
97.58
98.78
99.98
~~
Race
Black
9 9 10.84 10.84
Hispanic
6 15 7.23 18.07
Other
1
16 1.20 19.27
White
67 83 80.72
99.99
~~
Parents’ Level
of
Education
8
years or below
3
9-11
years
12
13-15
years
22
16
years and above
7
12
years
25
Not reported
14
3 3.61 3.61
I5 14.46 18.07
40 30.12 48.19
62 26.51 74.70
69 8.43 83.13
83 16.97
100.00
differing criteria, they were each required to conform to
PL
94-142
by demonstrating
an ability-achievement discrepancy.
Means, standard deviations, and ranges
for
the General Conceptual Ability (GCA)
score and ability cluster scores
of
the Differential Ability Scales
for
the entire sample
are shown in Table 2. As a group, the students with learning disabilities scored within
the below-average range on General Conceptual Ability. This classification was based
on the normative descriptions in the DAS’s Administration and Scoring Manual (Elliott,
1990).
Means for ability clusters ranged from
9
to
13
points lower than the mean
of
100
expected
for
a normal population.
Table
2
DAS General Conceptual and Cluster Ability Score Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
for
the Entire Sample
(N=
83)
Area Range
M
SD
Ability Cluster
Verbal
Nonverbal
Spatial
Special Nonverbal
51-118 91.45 13.11
60-116 87.30 12.61
59- I25
91.45 13.97
57-120
88.33 12.88
General Conceutual Abilitv
59-122 88.37 12.64
剩余13页未读,继续阅读
资源评论
weixin_38539053
- 粉丝: 4
- 资源: 944
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
最新资源
- 光储并网VSG系统Matlab simulink仿真模型,附参考文献 系统前级直流部分包括光伏阵列、变器、储能系统和双向dcdc变器,后级交流子系统包括逆变器LC滤波器,交流负载 光储并网VSG系
- file_241223_024438_84523.pdf
- 质子交膜燃料电池PEMFC Matlab simulink滑模控制模型,过氧比控制,温度控制,阴,阳极气压控制
- IMG20241223015444.jpg
- 模块化多电平变器(MMC),本模型为三相MMC整流器 控制策略:双闭环控制、桥臂电压均衡控制、模块电压均衡控制、环流抑制控制策略、载波移相调制,可供参考学习使用,默认发2020b版本及以上
- Delphi 12 控件之FlashAV FFMPEG VCL Player For Delphi v7.0 for D10-D11 Full Source.7z
- Delphi 12 控件之DevExpressVCLProducts-24.2.3.exe.zip
- Mysql配置文件优化内容 my.cnf
- 中国地级市CO2排放数据(2000-2023年).zip
- smart200光栅报警程序
资源上传下载、课程学习等过程中有任何疑问或建议,欢迎提出宝贵意见哦~我们会及时处理!
点击此处反馈
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功