MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1177/0022219415572895

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of learning disabilities · 2015

Double-Deficit Hypothesis in a Clinical Sample: Extension Beyond Reading.

Heikkilä Riikka, Torppa Minna, Aro Mikko, Närhi Vesa, Ahonen Timo

СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

This study explored the double-deficit hypothesis (DDH) in a transparent orthography (Finnish) and extended the view from reading disabilities to comorbidity of learning-related problems in math and attention. Children referred for evaluation of learning disabilities in second through sixth grade (N = 205) were divided into four groups based on rapid automatized naming (RAN) and phonological awareness (PA) according to the DDH: the double-deficit group, the naming speed deficit-only group, the phonological deficit-only group, and the no-deficit group. The results supported the DDH in that the prevalence and severity of reading disability were greatest in the double-deficit group. Despite the greater prevalence of reading disabilities in single-deficit groups compared to the no-deficit group, the means of reading measures in the single-deficit groups were similar to those of the no-deficit group. The PA single-deficit group was poorer in spelling than the no-deficit group and single-naming-deficit group. Deficits in RAN or PA were primarily linked to reading disabilities but not with math or attention problems. The results supported the DDH partially and indicate that deficits in RAN and PA are specific to reading disabilities.

Для цитирования: Heikkilä Riikka, Torppa Minna, Aro Mikko, Närhi Vesa, Ahonen Timo. Double-Deficit Hypothesis in a Clinical Sample: Extension Beyond Reading.. Journal of learning disabilities. 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0022219415572895.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.