Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and <i>DSM-5</i> Criteria: Implications for the Field

Schroeder, Meadow; Drefs, Michelle; Zwiers, Michael

doi:10.1177/0829573520915366

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children's math ability was measured with three pen‐and‐paper tasks ( Numerical Operations, Math Problem Solving , and Math Fluency subtests of the WIAT‐III, Wechsler, 2009). The WIAT‐III is an instrument frequently used to measure children's academic achievement and to identify MLD (see Schroeder et al, 2020, for a recent implementation). Each task measures a different aspect of the math abilities that children are expected to develop over the first year in school.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity in children at risk of math learning difficulties

Múñez

Bull

Lee³

et al. 2023

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study recruited 428 Singaporean children at risk of math learning difficulties (MLD; Mage = 83.9 months, SDage = 4.35 months; 41% female). Using a factor mixture model that considered both quantitative and qualitative differences in math ability, two qualitatively different groups were identified: one with generalized difficulties across different math skills and the other with more focal difficulties in arithmetic fluency. Reading, working memory capacity, and numeracy (number line estimation skills and numerical discrimination) uniquely explained group membership. Children within each group differed in the extent of difficulties they exhibited, with numeracy variables differentially contributing to math ability in each group. Findings speak against a dimensional view of MLD and underscore the conceptual limitations of using basic numeracy performance to profile learning difficulties.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity in children at risk of math learning difficulties

Múñez

Bull

Lee³

et al. 2023

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Math skills were measured with three pen-and-paper tasks ( numerical operations, math problem solving , and math fluency subtests of the WIAT-III, Wechsler, 2009). The WIAT-III is an instrument frequently used to measure children’s academic achievement and to identify math learning difficulties (see Schroeder, 2020; for a recent implementation). Each task measures a different aspect of the math abilities that children are expected to develop over the first year in school.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory and numeracy training for children with math learning difficulties: Evidence from a large-scale implementation in the classroom.

Múñez¹,

Lee²,

Bull³

et al. 2022

Journal of Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored the challenges, limitations, and potential effectiveness of a large-scale computerized working memory and numeracy intervention in the classroom with children at risk of mathematical learning disabilities (n = 428, Mage = 83.85 months, 41% female). Children were assigned to four different treatment protocols (working memory [WM], working memory plus numeracy [NWM], numeracy [NUM], and active control [AC]) that were implemented as part of normally scheduled class activities for 1 year. Wide variability in training exposure highlighted the challenges of implementing an ecologically valid large-scale classroom intervention. The NUM and NWM intervention contributed to improvements in various early numeracy skills as well as math achievement after accounting for training exposure. Some of these effects emerged once the intervention concluded. However, the intervention failed to improve WM, which was likely due to insufficient training dosage in the practical setting. Findings suggest that combining both working memory and numerical skills training is worth further investigation. The study also provides evidence of challenges related to the implementation of training programs in real-life learning environments.

show abstract

“…(Bowe, 2019) Learning Disabilities. (Archambault et al, 2019; Chu et al, 2020; Gagnon & Cormier, 2019; Parker et al, 2020; Schroeder et al, 2020) Language . (Segal & Collin-Vézina, 2019) Social and emotional learning.…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learning Disabilities. (Archambault et al, 2019; Chu et al, 2020; Gagnon & Cormier, 2019; Parker et al, 2020; Schroeder et al, 2020)…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributing to an Evidence-Based Practice in Canadian School Psychology

Shaw

2020

Canadian Journal of School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Canadian Journal of School Psychology has established itself as one of the leading scholarly journals in the profession of school psychology. In addition to promoting a Canada-wide version of professional school psychology, CJSP will continue to be an international leader for innovation and contributions to creating an evidence-based profession. CJSP will continue to publish the highest quality research and scholarship that contributes to the practice of school psychology, supports professionals working in schools and clinics, and presents new approaches to support the mental health, learning, and development of children and adolescents. The accomplishments and contents from 2020 are reviewed and a roadmap is described for the future of CJSP.

show abstract

Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Heterogeneity in children at risk of math learning difficulties

Heterogeneity in children at risk of math learning difficulties

Working memory and numeracy training for children with math learning difficulties: Evidence from a large-scale implementation in the classroom.

Contributing to an Evidence-Based Practice in Canadian School Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About