PubMed · 8040216
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K E Stanovich. 1994. Annotation: does dyslexia exist?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01208.x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: This is the second of two articles introducing a clinical competency examination in radiology. The first article described the structure, administration, and postexamination student comments for two versions of the radiology competency examination. This article reports the results obtained from these two administrations of the examinations. OBJECTIVE: To measure and identify potential outcome predictors of student aptitude in clinical film interpretation. DESIGN: Experimental. METHODS: An examination was developed to simulate the radiologic interpretive skills needed in clinical chiropractic practice. Two versions of the examination were given to a class of 210 ninth trimester students in a 10-trimester chiropractic program. Linear regression and bivariate correlations were performed on possible predictors of student success and test scores on the version 2 examination. RESULTS: On version 1 of the examination, students were able to identify an average of 59.6% of the normal cases as normal and 51.6% of abnormal cases as abnormal. On version 2, 55.6% of the normal cases were recognized as normal and 58.2% of abnormal cases as abnormal. On both versions, students were less successful at correctly categorizing, managing, or naming pathologic conditions they found. Of the predictors evaluated, only the students' grades in the third radiology course (tumors, arthritides, and extremity trauma) and the scores on the diagnostic imaging section of National Boards part II were significant predictors. DISCUSSION: Our results should cause some concern for educators who use content-based radiology curricula. Students demonstrated poor abilities to recognize, categorize, manage, and identify common radiographic pathologic conditions. Educators cannot rely on National Board scores and course grades to determine student clinical competency. More radiology clinical competency exercises that emphasize film interpretation need to be incorporated into content-based curricula.
This paper compares four current theories of expertise with respect to chess players' memory: Chase and Simon's chunking theory, Holding's SEEK theory, Ericsson and Kintsch's long-term working memory theory, and Gobet and Simon's template theory (Chase, W.G., Simon, H.A., 1973a. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 4, 55-81; Holding, D.H., 1985. The Psychology of Chess Skill. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ; Ericsson, K.A., Kintsch, W., 1995. Long-term working memory. Psychological Review 102, 211-245; Gobet, F., Simon, H.A., 1996b. Templates in chess memory: a mechanism for recalling several boards. Cognitive Psychology 31, 1-40). The empirical areas showing the largest discriminative power include recall of random and distorted positions, recall with very short presentation times, and interference studies. Contrary to recurrent criticisms in the literature, it is shown that the chunking theory is consistent with most of the data. However, the best performance in accounting for the empirical evidence is obtained by the template theory. The theory, which unifies low-level aspects of cognition, such as chunks, with high-level aspects, such as schematic knowledge and planning, proposes that chunks are accessed through a discrimination net, where simple perceptual features are tested, and that they can evolve into more complex data structures (templates) specific to classes of positions. Implications for the study of expertise in general include the need for detailed process models of expert behavior and the need to use empirical data spanning the traditional boundaries of perception, memory, and problem solving.
Talents that selectively facilitate the acquisition of high levels of skill are said to be present in some children but not others. The evidence for this includes biological correlates of specific abilities, certain rare abilities in autistic savants, and the seemingly spontaneous emergence of exceptional abilities in young children, but there is also contrary evidence indicating an absence of early precursors of high skill levels. An analysis of positive and negative evidence and arguments suggests that differences in early experiences, preferences, opportunities, habits, training, and practice are the real determinants of excellence.