Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to R E Wharry.
Reanalysis of testosterone values published in 1993 gave a significantly higher mean and standard deviation for 15 learning-disabled children scoring P > V than those for 10 scoring V > P but not for a matched nonlearning-disabled group. Replication with larger samples would allow a test of hemispheric integration.
Previous studies have indicated that the sex steroids have organizational effects upon neural tissue and that abnormal secretion during development may lead to functional anomalies. In this study, we explore the possibility of prepubertal steroid hormone involvement in the etiology of learning disabilities. Salivary testosterone levels in 264 children without learning disabilities (133 males, 131 females) were measured and compared to that in 32 children with learning disabilities (25 males, 7 females). The presence of learning disabilities was significantly associated with higher salivary testosterone. Data from equivalent samples of learning-disabled and control subjects also were compared separately because of disparities in sample size and variable distribution in the total group analysis. A 32-member sample of nonlearning-disabled children was created by randomly selecting individuals who exactly matched the age, race, and sex characteristics of the learning-disabled group. The matched analysis further substantiated the association between testosterone secretion and learning disabilities. Thus, it is possible that some learning disabilities may be associated in part with abnormal testosterone levels.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The purpose of this study was to assess difference in academic performance among myopic, hyperopic, and emmetropic children who were learning disabled. More specifically, myopic children were expected to perform better on mathematical and spatial tasks than would hyperopic ones and that hyperopic and emmetropic children would perform better on verbal measures than would myopic ones. For 439 learning disabled students visual anomalies were determined via a Generated Retinal Reflex Image Screening System. Test data were obtained from school files. Partial support for the hypothesis was obtained. Myopic learning disabled children outperformed hyperopic and emmetropic children on the Key Math test. Myopic children scored better than hyperopic children on the WRAT Reading subtest and on the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Oral Reading Comprehension, Oral Rate, Flashword, and Spelling subtests, and on the Key Math Measurement and Total Scores. Severity of refractive error significantly affected the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised Full Scale, Performance Scale, Verbal Scale, and Digit Span scores but did not affect any academic test scores. Several other findings were also reported. Those with nonametropic problems scored higher than those without problems on the Key Math Time subtest. Implications supportive of the theories of Benbow and Benbow and Geschwind and Behan were stated.
This study compared descriptive data, obtained via retinal reflex photography, concerning ocular anomalies of 439 learning disabled elementary school children, 1657 kindergarten and Grade 1 nonlearning disabled children, and 724 nonlearning disabled children in Grades 2 to 6. Ocular factors included refractive and nonametropic errors as well as severity of the problem. The learning disabled sample had a significantly higher incidence of refractive error than the normal samples in Kindergarten and Grade 1 but lower incidence than the normal sample in Grades 2 to 6. The learning disabled group had a significantly higher incidence of myopia in one or both eyes than did the kindergarten and first grade normal group. No such difference for myopia existed between the learning disabled and the normal sample in Grades 2 to 6. Incidence of hyperopia in both eyes was significantly lower in the learning disabled than in the kindergarten-first grade sample; however, hyperopia in one eye only was greater for the learning disabled than for the older normals. Significant differences between the younger and older normals existed for all types of refractive error except hyperopia in only one eye. Severity of the problem differed significantly between the learning disabled and the kindergarten-first grade sample in the classes of severe and minimal, not at all when comparing learning disabled and older normals, and in all classes when comparing younger and older normals. The learning disabled also had a significantly higher incidence of nonametropic anomalies than did the normal group. Implications relating refractive error and near environment were discussed.