Distinct Memory Profiles in Children with Learning Disabilities: a Neuropsychological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of research has focused on memory dysfunction in children with learning disabilities. However, findings have been inconsistent which may be attributed to the limitations inherent in the approaches previously used in this area. Given the heterogeneous nature of learning disabilities, the current study examined performance on the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning- Second Edition (WRAML2) to identify reliable and meaningful memory profiles in children and adolescents diagnosed with a learning disability. A total of 101 children and adolescents between the ages of 9 and 16 diagnosed with a learning disability were included in this study. Participants scaled subtest scores on the WRAML2 core subtests and the verbal working memory subtest were subjected to two-stage hierarchical and iterative partitioning cluster analysis. Internal validity of the final cluster solution was established using multiple-method reliability techniques. Comparison of the results obtained using several two-stage cluster analyses strongly suggested the presence of five memory subtypes. Three of the five clusters were differentiated primarily by level of performance (Average, Low Average, and Borderline scores on the majority of subtests). The other two clusters were differentiated by pattern of performance (weak visuospatial short term memory and weak auditory verbal short term memory). The five subtypes exhibited distinct patterns of performance on measures of delayed memory, intellectual functioning, and academic achievement. Also, the groups differed in the rate of co-morbid ADHD, the results together suggesting that the memory profiles are valid and potentially clinically meaningful. The findings indicate that reliable patterns of WRAML2 subtest scores can be identified in children and adolescents with learning disabilities. The implications of the findings are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".