Development of a learning disabilities test: a case study at elementary school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine the procedure and to assess the quality of the development of test instruments in measuring the learning disabilities of elementary school students. Learning disabilities are formulated as disorders that occur in learning activities such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia. The type of the research is research and development by using Martini Jamaris’s Model. The subjects were 90 students of elementary school in Jakarta. The number of items was 75 items consisting of 19 items (dyslexia), 29 items (dysgraphia), and 27 items (dyscalculia). The results obtained in the validity test were declared valid were only 54 of the 75 items. Reliability of the test was stated to be reliable with very high interpretation in all dimensions. The results of the analysis of learning disabilities using a learning disabilities test that have been developed were obtained 90% of students experience learning disabilities.Abdurrahman, Mulyono. 2012. Anak Berkesulitan Belajar: Teori, Diagnosis, Dan Remediasinya. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.Aiken, Lewis R., and Gary Groth-Marnat. 2005. Psychological Testing and Assessment. 12th ed. New Delhi: Pearson.Allen, K. Eileen, and Ilene S. Schwartz. 2001. The Exeptional Child Inclusion in Early Childhood Education. New York: Delmar.Aro, TuijaAhonen, Timo. 2011. Assessment of Learning Disabilities: Cooperation Beetween Teacher, Psychologists, and Parent. African ed. Finland: Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy – Uniprint.Aziz, Abdul. n.d. “Dataset Development of A Learning Disabilities Test: A Case Study at Elementary School.”Chodijah, Medina. 2014. “Model Bimbingan Kolaboratif Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Akademik Anak Yang Mengalami Kesulitan Belajar (Learning Disabilities) Di Sekolah Dasar Inklusif.” Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.Deiner, Penny L. 2013. Inclusive Early Childhood Education Development, Resources and Practice. 6th ed. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, and James O. Carey. 2015. The Systematic Design of Instructional. 8th ed. New York: Pearson Education Inc.Essa, Eva L. 2014. Introduction to Early Childhood Education. 7th ed. Canada: Thomson Learning Inc.Gall, Meredith D., Joyce P. Gall, and Walter R. Borg. 2003. “Educational Research: An Introduction.” Educational Research: An Introduction 683.Gephart, Harlan R. 2019. “Learning Problems in Children and Adolescents.” Pp. 9–15 in ADHD Complex.Gooch, Deanna L. 2012. “Research, Development, and Validation of A School Leader’s Resource Guide for The Facilitation of Social Media Use by School Staff.” Kansas State University.Harwell, Joan M., and rebecca W. Jackson. 2008. The Complete Learning Disabilities Handbook: Ready-to Use Strategies and Activities for Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities. 3rd ed. San Francisco: jossey-Bass.Heward, William L., Sheila R. Alber-Morgan, and Moira Konrad. 2017. Exceptional Children An Introduction to Special Education. 11th ed. New York: Pearson.Ifdil, Ifdil, Rima P. Fadli, Nilma Zola, Elfi Churnia, Yola Eka Putri, and Berru Amalianita. 2020. “The Effectiveness of Ifdil Perceptual Light Technique in Reducing Ophidiophobia.” Addictive Disorders & Their Treatment 19(4):247–51.Jamaris, Martini. 2014. Kesulitan Belajar: Perspektif, Asesmen, Dan Penanggulangannya Bagi Anak Usia Dini Dan Usia Sekolah. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.Jamaris, Martini, and Edwita. 2014. “Formal Multiple Intelligences Assessment Instruments for 4-6 Years Old Children.” American Journal of Educational Research 2(12):1164–74.Juntorn, Sutinun, Sarinya Sriphetcharawut, and Peeraya Munkhetvit. 2017. “Effectiveness of Information Processing Strategy Training on Academic Task Performance in Children With Learning Disabilities: A Pilot Study.” Occupational Therapy International.Kirk, Samuel, James J. Gallagher, Mary R. Coleman, and Nick Anastasiow. 2009. Educating Exceptional Children. 12th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.Klein, M. Diane, Ruth E. Cook, and Anne M. Richardson-Gibson. 2001. Strategies for Including Children With Special Needs in Early Childhood Settings. New York: Delmar.Leong, Han Ming, Mark Carter, and Jennifer R. Stephenson. 2015. “Meta-Analysis of Research on Sensory Integration Therapy for Individuals with Developmental and Learning Disabilities.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 27(2):183–206.Maehler, Claudia, and Kirsten Schuchardt. 2016. “The Importance of Working Memory for School Achievement in Primary School Children with Intellectual or Learning Disabilities.” Research in Developmental Disabilities 58:1–8.Mangunsong, Frieda. 2014. Psikologi Dan Pendidikan Anak Berkebutuhan Khusus. 1st ed. Depok: LPSP3 UI. Mora, JNC; Silva, FB; Lopez, RR; Cortez, REC. 2016. “Design, Adaptation and Content Validity Process of a Questionnaire: A Case Study.” International Journal of Management 7(7):204–16.Mulyatiningsih, Endang. 2011. “Riset Terapan Bidang Pendidikan Dan Teknik.” 1–254.N Young, Sonia, and Karen Furgal. 2016. “Effectiveness and Implication of Sensory Integration Therapy on School Performance of Children with Learning Disabilities.” International Journal of Neurorehabilitation 03(01):17–18.Pesova, Biljana, Despina Sivevska, and Jadranka Runceva. 2014. “Early Intervention and Prevention of Students With Specific Learning Disabilities.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 149:701–8.Post, Marcel W. 2016. “What to Do with ‘Moderate’ Reliability and Validity Coefficients?” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 97(7):1051–52.Sidiarto, Lily D. 2007. Perkembangan Otak Dan Kesulitan Belajar Pada Anak. Jakarta: UI Press.Smith, Catherine M. 1997. “Development of A Learning Disabilities Screening TesT for Adults.” University of Toronto.Smith, Tom E. C., Edward A. Polloway, Jamews R. Patton, and Carol A. Dowdy. 2008. Teaching Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Setting. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Educational Inc.Taherdoost, Hamed. 2016. “Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of aQuestionnaire/Survey in a Research.” International Journal of Academic Research in Management 5(3):28–36.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".