PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “DISABLED CHILDREN”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources
PubMed1986

Developmental classification of reading-disabled children.

The present study developed and used longitudinal cluster analysis, a multivariate classification technique, to classify a sample of 200 nonclinical normal and reading-disabled males based on their performances on a neuropsychological battery at kindergarten, second, and fifth grades. The resulting classification was examined against various internal and external validation criteria. Using a validation framework, five developmental subtypes of children, two normal and three deficit reader groups, were found. Three of these groups could best be described as partitions of a multivariate normal distribution; the other two, both containing deficit readers, showed different covariance structures, suggesting differing developmental patterns. These groups were shown to differ with respect to the domains of academic achievement, parental achievement, neurological status, birth histories, school behaviors, and neuropsychological-cognitive development. The results suggest that developmental classifications can be formed by using multivariate classification methods and the subtypes support findings from cross-sectional classification research on similar populations.

Child↗
PubMed1990

Grammatical awareness in the spoken and written language of language-disabled children.

Experiments examined grammatical judgement, and error-identification deficits in relation to expressive language skills and to morphemic errors in writing. Language-disabled subjects did not differ from language-matched controls on judgement, revision, or error identification. Age-matched controls represented more morphemes in elicited writing than either of the other groups, which were equivalent. However, in spontaneous writing, language-disabled subjects made more frequent morphemic errors than age-matched controls, but language-matched subjects did not differ from either group. Proficiency relative to academic experience and oral language status and to remedial implications are discussed.

Attention↗