Verbal and nonverbal communication of events in learning-disability subtypes

Abstract

This study compared a group of nondisabled children (ND) with groups of learning-disabled children who were primarily impaired in reading and arithmetic skills (Reading-Arithmetic Disabled; RAD) and arithmetic but not reading (Arithmetic Disabled; AD) on a set of tasks involving comprehension and production of verbally and nonverbally presented events. Children viewed videotaped scenarios presented in verbal (narrative) and nonverbal (puppet actors) formats and were asked to describe or enact with puppets the events depicted in the stories. Rourke (1978, 1982) has shown that RAD children have problems with verbal skills, whereas AD children have problems with nonverbal skills. Consequently, it was hypothesized that children's performance in comprehending and reproducing stories would be related to the type of learning disability. Results showed that RAD children made more errors than AD children with verbal presentations and describe-responses, whereas AD children made more errors than RAD children with nonverbal presentations and enact-responses. In addition, learning disabled children were more likely than controls to misinterpret affect and motivation depicted in the stories. These results show that learning disabled children have problems with social communication skills, but that the nature of these problems varies with the type of learning disability.

Nonverbal Learning Disabilities and Socioemotional Functioning

“…One hypothesis is that children with learning disabilities, and particularly children with nonverbal learning disabilities, have difficulty processing social cues. The results of two studies that included subtyping methodology (Loveland et al, 1990;Ozols & Rourke, 1985) suggest that there is an interaction between learning disability subtype and perception of social cues. This interaction appears to be complex and deserves further study using subtyping measures that have demonstrated reliability in previous studies.…”

“…To validly address this question, investigators would have to group participants with learning disabilities by subtype before assessing their abilities to interpret social cues. Two studies were found that included such methodology: one by Ozols and Rourke (1985), and one by Loveland, Fletcher, and Bailey (1990). Ozols and Rourke (1985) reported that on measures of social perception involving verbal labeling and explanations, clinic-identified children with language disabilities were more impaired than both nondisabled children and children with other types of learning disabilities.…”

“…Both groups of children with learning disabilities were significantly weaker than the nondisabled group in interpreting story characters' affect, regardless of mode of story presentation. Loveland et al (1990) advised replication of their study with a larger sample and with the addition of a nonverbal method for measuring comprehension of affect and motivation. In addition, more stringent selection criteria, such as eliminating participants with combined verbal and nonverbal deficits, might provide a clearer depiction of the effects of verbal versus nonverbal learning disabilities.…”

“…The finding that subtypes did, in fact, differ on discrete measures of social perception was promising. Loveland et al (1990) reported a systematic attempt to determine whether type of learning disability (arithmetic disability vs. both reading and arithmetic disability vs. no learning disability) interacts differentially with type of communication task (i.e., verbal vs. nonverbal and receptive vs. expressive). Thirty-nine children viewed videotapes in which either a narrator told a story (verbal receptive condition) or puppet actors acted out the same story (nonverbal receptive condition).…”

Classification Rules for Basic Phonological Processing Disabilities and Nonverbal Learning Disabilities: Formulation and External Validity*

“…Applying this approach, a number of subtypes of LD based on patterns of academic and neuropsychological assets and de®cits were generated. Their reliability and validity have been the subject of considerable scienti®c scrutiny in a number of laboratories (Loveland, Fletcher, & Bailey, 1990;Share, Mof®tt, & Silva, 1988;Silver, Pennett, Black, Fair, & Balise, 1999;White, Mof®tt, & Silva, 1992). (See Greenham [1999], Little [1993], Rourke & Fuerst [1992], and Rourke [2000] for reviews of this and related work.…”