PubMed · 2250132
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A M Galaburda. 1990. Response to Hammill.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2250132/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
AIMS: The development and multiplication of information about learning disorders leads to the need to systematise the knowledge available and to base it on the clinical data. DEVELOPMENT: Apart from trouble-free diagnoses, non-verbal learning disorders are characterised by their high comorbidity rate. They are associated to attention deficit with or without hyperactivity, motor coordination disorder, dyscalculia, problems with social development and also, to a certain extent, oral and written language disorders. Depending on countries, a child with a good fundamental intellectual capacity and good development of language, but motor clumsiness and low visuospatial skills with or without relational difficulties can be diagnosed in different ways. In this study, after briefly reviewing the literature on comorbidity and the contexts of the work, we propose a set of guidelines for basic examination that can be used in visits due to learning disorders, including suggestive history, areas that require detailed questioning, and central tests. CONCLUSIONS: Partly because of the comorbidity, following the introductory visit, only a multidisciplinary team can study a child with non-verbal learning disorder properly, using specific tests to pinpoint the profile of their difficulties; their strong points should also be stressed.
AIMS: Following the diagnosis of intellectual disability, a prognosis can be offered concerning the degree of autonomy the child will be able to achieve based on prior experience, but which depends on the aetiology of the disability. It is still difficult to give a prospective answer regarding the capacity to reach an operative level of written language. The goal of being able to offer an experience-based prognosis involves prior analysis of how learning dysfunctions are approached in the disabled population. DEVELOPMENT: Although we have an increasingly deeper understanding of the neurocognitive foundations of specific learning difficulties and the careful neuropsychological management of children with disorders affecting the acquisition of written language with a typical intellectual level, those with intellectual disability continue to be treated using a simplistic approach in which their intelligence quotient is still taken as the most relevant feature. Little attention is paid to neuropsychological aspects, the pedagogical and social environment or comorbid aspects that may affect the acquisition of the function. Yet, these are aspects that are submitted to thorough evaluation in children who are not disabled. CONCLUSIONS: The current concept of intellectual disability has gone beyond the definition based on the intelligence quotient. The wide variability in the reading function in children with intellectual disability cannot be explained only according to a psychometric assessment. A more complete neuropsychological approach, as carried out in the population with no disability, will enable us to detect cognitive, pedagogical, social and pathological dysfunctions that interfere with the acquisition of written language.
INTRODUCTION: The current trends in the evaluation of mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), based on cognitive and empirical models, are oriented towards combining procedures involving the criteria and the evaluation of cognitive and metacognitive processes, associated to performance in mathematical tasks. AIMS: The objective of this study is to analyse the metacognitive skills of prediction and evaluation in performing maths tasks and to compare metacognitive performance among pupils with MLD and younger pupils without MLD, who have the same level of mathematical performance. Likewise, we analyse these pupils' desire to learn. Subjects and methods. We compare a total of 44 pupils from the second cycle of primary education (8-10 years old) with and without mathematics learning disabilities. RESULTS: Significant differences are observed between pupils with and without mathematics learning disabilities in their capacity to predict and assess all of the tasks evaluated. As regards their 'desire to learn', no significant differences were found between pupils with and without MLD, which indicated that those with MLD assess their chances of successfully performing maths tasks in the same way as those without MLD. Finally, the findings reveal a similar metacognitive profile in pupils with MLD and the younger pupils with no mathematics learning disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: In future studies we consider it important to analyse the influence of the socio-affective belief system in the use of metacognitive skills.