Translating Interdisciplinary Research on Language Learning into Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities in Verbally Gifted and Average Children and Youth

Abstract

The current research was grounded in prior interdisciplinary research that showed cognitive ability (verbal ability for translating cognitions into oral language) and multiple-working memory endophenotypes (behavioral markers of genetic or brain bases of language learning) predict reading and writing achievement in students with and without specific learning disabilities in written language (SLDs-WL). Results largely replicated prior findings that verbally gifted with dyslexia score higher on reading and writing achievement than those with average verbal ability but not on endophenotypes. The current study extended that research by comparing those with and without SLDs-WL with assessed verbal ability held constant. The verbally gifted without SLDs-WL (n = 14) scored higher than the verbally gifted with SLDs-WL (n = 27) on six language skills (oral sentence construction, best and fastest handwriting in copying, single real word oral reading accuracy, oral pseudoword reading accuracy and rate) and four endophenotypes (orthographic and morphological coding, orthographic loop, and switching attention). The verbally average without SLDs-WL (n = 6) scored higher than the verbally average with SLDs-WL (n = 22) on four language skills (best and fastest handwriting in copying, oral pseudoword reading accuracy and rate) and two endophenotypes (orthographic coding and orthographic loop). Implications of results for translating interdisciplinary research into flexible definitions for assessment and instruction to serve students with varying verbal abilities and language learning and endophenotype profiles are discussed along with directions for future research.

Movement Issues Identified in Movement ABC2 Checklist Parent Ratings for Students with Persisting Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD and Typical Literacy Learners

“…A third group was identified who scored below the population mean on at least two word reading/decoding measures ( WJ 3 Word Identification , Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001; WJ 3 Word Attack , Woodcock et al, 2001; TOWRE Sight Word and Phonemic Efficiency , Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) and/or spelling/encoding measures ( TOC Word Choice , Mather, Roberts, Hammill, & Allen, 2008; WIAT 3 Spelling , Pearson, 2009) which also had to be at least a standard deviation below their WISC 4 VCI (Dyslexia Group, N = 65, 37 boys, 28 girls, M = 137.87 months). This approach, which does not require a rigid criterion of severe discrepancy, supports identification of dyslexia across a range of VCI abilities (Lyman, Sanders, Abbott, & Berninger, 2017). A fourth group was identified who scored at or below the 25th percentile on at least two syntax measures for oral and/or written comprehension and/or expression (e.g., WJ 3 Writing Fluency, Woodcock et al, 2001; WIAT 3 Sentence Combining , Pearson, 2009) and had a current and past history of ongoing struggles with one or more language skills at the syntax level (listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression), which began during the preschool years (OWL LD Group, N = 19, 13 boys, 28 girls, M = 143.29 months).…”

Neuropsychological Profile of Intellectually Gifted Children: A Systematic Review

“…This review confirmed discrepancies in cognitive measures of IG and put forward several explanatory assumptions. It is an issue of crucial importance that deserves thorough study, in order to improve the characterization of the IG profile and inform the controversial debate about how to identify IG children with learning disabilities (Lyman et al, 2017). Just like their peers, these children may also be concerned by LD, despite cognitive strengths and possible compensatory mechanisms.…”

Behavioral and brain evidence for language by ear, mouth, eye, and hand and motor skills in literacy learning

“…ADHD was not an exclusionary criterion, but few had ADHD except some with dysgraphia. For additional information on procedures, which used normed tests, developmental and educational histories, and parents ratings on evidencebased scales, see Berninger, Richards, and Abbott (2015), Lyman, Sanders, Abbott, and.…”