Executive Dysfunctions, Reading Disabilities and Speech-Language Pathology Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many students with reading disabilities exhibit persisting reading problems despite intervention. The crucial difference between effective and struggling readers is their executive functions (EFs), and improved functions impact positively on learning to read and reading to learn. OBJECTIVES: Firstly, to show that high-risk and struggling students' persisting language and reading difficulties are accompanied by executive dysfunctions. Secondly, to present one student's daily struggles at school in a narrative based on teacher, parent and child interviews. METHOD: This retrospective study is based on speech-language pathology (SLP) evaluations of a clinical sample of 23 girls and boys aged 6-16 from a range of middle class families. While language and reading evaluations were tailored to the students' particular situation, i.e. age, grade, languages or complaint, EFs were examined in all with the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function teacher questionnaire. RESULTS: Virtually all students exhibited executive dysfunctions, and many showed a high risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that inclusion of EFs in SLP evaluations is valuable in uncovering executive dysfunction comorbidity that may underlie persisting reading disorders. It is proposed that speech-language pathologists explicitly and routinely braid language and reading with EFs in their evaluations so to effectively predict, uncover and prevent persisting reading disabilities in students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it