Psychometric Phrenology and the New Faculty Psychology: The Case against Ability Assessment and Training

Mann, Lester

doi:10.1177/002246697100500102

Cited by 53 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The five basic assumptions of DD-PT that are presented below have been synthesized from various authors: Hammill (1972), Larsen and Hammill (1975), Mann (1971), Proger, Cross, and Burger (1973), and…”

Section: Assumptions Basic To the Dd-pt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Diagnosis—Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal

Arter

Jenkins

1979

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dominant instructional model within special education, Differential Diagnosis-Prescriptive Teaching, involves the assessment of psycholinguistic and perceptual motor abilities that are presumed necessary for learning basic academic skills. Based on the differential pattern of ability strengths and weaknesses resulting from this assessment, individual remedial prescriptions are prescribed.In this article five assumptions underlying this model are identified. Also presented is a comprehensive review of research related to each assumption. The findings seriously challenge the model's validity and suggest that continued advocacy of the model cannot be justified. Children do not appear to profit from current applications of Differential DiagnosisPrescriptive Teaching. DD-PT: A Critical Appraisal 2Differential Diagnosis-Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical AppraisalThe term "differential diagnosis" refers to the process of assessing the learning characteristics of a child so that instruction can be matched to individual learning needs (Kirk & Kirk, 1971, p. 12; Kirk, 1972, p. 7). Although, in theory, this could include any procedure that attempts to delineate a child's specific strengths and weaknesses (Ysseldyke & Salvia, 1974), it has traditionally referred to those practices that attempt to diagnose abilities that presumably are prerequisite for or underlie academic learning (Mann, 1971;Ysseldyke, 1973). Such general psychological processes include auditory abilities (e.g., auditory discrimination and memory), visual abilities (e.g., visual discrimination and spatial relationships), cross sensory perceptual abilities (e.g., auditory-visual integration) and psycholinguistic abilities (e.g., auditory sequential memory and verbal expression). According to this model, failure to master basic academic skills, such as reading, may be traced to impairments in one or more of these underlying processes or abilities. To illustrate, a child who experiences failure in school tasks such as spelling phonetically irregular words, answering sequence questions based on material read, or copying sentences, may be found to suffer from an impairment in a basic process such as visual sequential memory (the ability to order a series of items so as to match a previously given model). DD-PT: A Critical Appraisal 3The term "diagnostic-prescriptive teaching," often used in conjunction with Differential Diagnosis, refers to the practice of formulating instructional prescriptions on the basis of differential diagnostic results.These prescriptions generally take one of two forms. In one form differential diagnostic information is used to generate a program to directly remediate an underlying ability weakness. In a second form weak abilities are not remediated; rather, the focus is on academic targets, such as reading or math, for which instructional programs are devised that capitalize upon the child's pattern of underlying strengths and weaknesses, as identified in the course of diagnosis. An example of the former approach would be...

show abstract

Section: Assumptions Basic To the Dd-pt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential Diagnosis—Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal

Arter

Jenkins

1979

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, it would appear to be an important correlate of reading ability. Although support has been offered for a positive relationship (Barrett 1965, Benton 1962, Dettirsch 1963, Frostig & Maslow 1969, Getman 1965, Vernon 1971, there also has been strong opposition to the assumption that visual perception is an important correlate of reading ability (Cohen 1969, Larsen & Hammill 1975, Mann 1971, Samuels 1973. Thus, although visual perceptual deficits have been found in a large number of problem readers (Coleman 1968) and visual perceptual deficits have been found to exert a greater negative influence than auditory perceptual defects (Weintraub 1967), the exact nature of the relationship remains in dispute.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Visual Perceptual Skills and Reading Achievement

Kavale

1982

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of research examines the relationship between visual perceptual skills and reading achievement using meta-analysis to integrate statistically the results from 161 studies. A total of 1,571 correlation coefficients were collected and aggregated across eight visual perceptual skills, six reading abilities, three grade levels, and three subject groups. Additionally, a correlation matrix was constructed and used for a factor analysis, cannonical correlation analysis, and step-wise multiple regression analysis descriptive of the relationship among and between visual perceptual skills, intelligence, and reading achievement variables. The findings suggested that visual perception is an important correlate of reading achievement, but the proportion of explained variance in reading skills was contingent on the combination of visual and reading variables considered. It was concluded that visual perceptual skills should be included in the complex of factors predictive of reading achievement.

show abstract

“…In the case of perceptual-motor training and modality-based instruction, no selected benefits were found and they can be rightly judged in an all-or-none manner. The attacks on process training have been rigorous (e.g., Mann, 1971) but apparently not convincing. The empirical evaluations especially for perceptual-motor and modality training seem unequivocal but are not persuasive enough to alter fundamental belief.…”

Section: Problem Of Process Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%