Biomedical subjects

Michael D Weiler

Publications and source records attributed to Michael D Weiler.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Investigation of biases in the general public in evaluating mild head injury using neuropsychological and CT scan results: forensic implications.

The purpose of this study was to determine how the general public considers neuropsychological (NP) vs. CT scan data in assessing the effects of a possible mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). Ten scenarios depicting an MTBI from a motor vehicle accident were presented to community volunteer participants. Case scenarios differed with regard to diagnostic information presented (i.e., all combinations of normal, abnormal, or absent NP and CT results were provided). The number of participants ranged from 31 to 42 across the 10 cases and there were no age or educational differences among the groups. Participants rated the likelihood of symptoms being attributable to brain damage from the accident on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Scenarios with positive NP or CT results were rated as more likely to have sustained brain damage than when NP/CT results were negative. However, when NP and CT data were contradictory (i.e., one positive and the other negative), there were no differences in the ratings of the participants. Thus, members of the general public did not demonstrate any preconceived bias about the validity of NP vs. CT results in MTBI. Women were more likely than men to attribute symptoms to brain damage from the motor vehicle accident, as did participants with a history of TBI. Forensic implications are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Motor sequence learning and reading ability: is poor reading associated with sequencing deficits?

Although it is widely assumed that children with learning disabilities have "sequencing problems," these have not been well specified. A non-verbal serial reaction time (SRT) paradigm was used to evaluate motor sequence learning in 422 children between ages 7 and 11 in relation to reading, cognitive ability level, and attention problems. The children demonstrated the response profile typically associated with motor sequence learning, but the component of the profile indicative of implicit sequence learning was not reliably associated with any of the predictors. Cognitive ability predicted overall response time; cognitive ability, reading, and attention problems each predicted overall accuracy. Explicit learning was predicted by cognitive ability, but not by reading or attention problems. Thus, we found no evidence that poor reading is preferentially associated with a domain general deficit in sequential learning.

Aptitude↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Neurobehavioral factors associated with referral for learning problems in a community sample: evidence for an adaptational model for learning disorders.

We evaluated community general education (CGE; n = 178), community special education (CSE; n = 30) and hospital-referred (HR, n = 145) children (ages 7-6 to 11-11) prospectively over a 2-year period. During this period, 17 CGE children were referred for evaluation (community referred; CR). Prior to referral, CR children performed more poorly than community-nonreferred (CNR) children on cognitive ability, academic achievement, attention problems, and information processing. CR group performance was equivalent to that of CSE and HR groups, but HR children showed poorer academic achievement. Referred children performed more poorly on all measures than nonreferred, whether they met formal diagnostic criteria for a learning disorder or not. Learning disorders may be better conceptualized as a context-dependent problem of functional adaptation than as a disability analogous to physical disabilities, raising questions about the validity of using psychometric test scores as the criterion for identification.

Achievement↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Neurodevelopmental characteristics of children with learning impairments classified according to the double-deficit hypothesis.

The double-deficit model has been examined primarily in relation to reading. We investigated whether children classified according to the double-deficit model would exhibit differences in other neuropsychological domains. Children referred for learning problems (N = 188), ages 7 to 11, were classified by double-deficit subtype. Only three of the four groups predicted by the model could be identified. There were no group differences in IQ or attention problems. The three groups showed different neuropsychological profiles, involving functional domains other than reading and language. Differences also emerged in nonverbal low-level information processing. The double-deficit group was generally most severely affected. The double-deficit groupings identify children with different neuropsychological profiles and variation in the efficiency of basic online information processing, extending beyond the oral and written language domain.

Anomia↗