OBJECTIVETo compare the effectiveness of three delivery modalities of Decision-making Education for Choices In Diabetes Everyday (DECIDE), a nine-module, literacy-adapted diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) education and problem-solving training, compared with an enhanced usual care (UC), on clinical and behavioral outcomes among urban African Americans with type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSEligible participants (n = 182) had a suboptimal CVD risk factor profile (A1C, blood pressure, and/or lipids). Participants were randomized to DECIDE Self-Study (n = 46), DECIDE Individual (n = 45), DECIDE Group (n = 46), or Enhanced UC (n = 45). Intervention duration was 18–20 weeks. Outcomes were A1C, blood pressure, lipids, problem-solving, disease knowledge, and self-care activities, all measured at baseline, 1 week, and 6 months after completion of the intervention.RESULTSDECIDE modalities and Enhanced UC did not significantly differ in clinical outcomes at 6 months postintervention. In participants with A1C ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol) at baseline, A1C declined in each DECIDE modality at 1 week postintervention (P < 0.05) and only in Self-Study at 6 months postintervention (b = −0.24, P < 0.05). There was significant reduction in systolic blood pressure in Self-Study (b = −4.04) and Group (b = −3.59) at 6 months postintervention. Self-Study, Individual, and Enhanced UC had significant declines in LDL and Self-Study had an increase in HDL (b = 1.76, P < 0.05) at 6 months postintervention. Self-Study and Individual had a higher increase in knowledge than Enhanced UC (P < 0.05), and all arms improved in problem-solving (P < 0.01) at 6 months postintervention.CONCLUSIONSDECIDE modalities showed benefits after intervention. Self-Study demonstrated robust improvements across clinical and behavioral outcomes, suggesting program suitability for broader dissemination to populations with similar educational and literacy levels.
Concurrent validity of the Stanford-Binet, 4th Edition (SBIV) was studied in 80 learning disabled children assigned to 3 groups according to Verbal and Performance IQ differences on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). The groups were designated Auditory-Linguistic (Verbal IQ < Performance IQ), Visual-Spatial (Performance IQ < Verbal IQ), and Mixed (Verbal IQ = Performance IQ). Multivariate analyses of variance indicated highly significant differences between the 3 groups on various SBIV scores. Discriminant analyses using SBIV scores at different levels revealed variable classification rates, with the 12 subtest scores showing the highest rate (75%) in correctly classifying the children into the 3 groups. Correlations between various SBIV scores and WISC-R scores for the total group were generally lower than expected, ranging from low to moderately high. Possible explanations for the discrepancy are discussed as well as potential problems in using the 2 scales as equivalent measures in identifying and classifying learning disabled children.
Concurrent validity of the Luria-Nebraska Psychological Battery-Children's Revision (LNNB-C) was studied in 82 learning disabled children who were divided into three groups according to Verbal and Performance IQ differences on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). The three groups, comparable in age and on WISC-R Full-Scale IQ scores, were designated auditorylinguistic (Verbal IQ < Performance IQ), visual-spatial (Performance IQ < Verbal IQ), and mixed (Verbal IQ = Performance IQ). A multivariate analysis of variance revealed no significant overall differences in LNNB-C subtest scores between the three subtype groups. In addition, exploratory univariate analyses of variance indicated no significant differences between groups on any of the 11 LNNB-C subtests. These results failed to support the validity of the LNNB-C in discriminating between learning disability patterns when general intelligence is controlled.The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision (LNNB-C;Golden, 1981Golden, , 1984 was designed for use with children from 8 to 12 years of age. Several recent studies have assessed the validity of the LNNB-C in discriminating between various groups, including normal, brain-damaged, learning disabled, and psychiatrically disordered children (Can;
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.