"How good is the evidence for a production deficiency among learning disabled students?": Correction to Shepherd et al.

Reports an error in "How good is the evidence for a production deficiency among learning disabled students" by Margaret J. Shepherd, Lynn M. Gelzheiser and Roberta A. Solar (Journal of Educational Psychology, 1985[Oct], Vol 77[5], 553-561). Figures 1 and 2 (p. 557 and 559, respectively) are reversed. The captions are correct, but Figure 1 should be above the caption for Figure 2 and Figure 2 should be above the caption for Figure 1. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1986-14779-001.) Investigated the spontaneous use of mnemonic strategies by learning disabled (LD) and non-LD children and adolescents to examine whether LD Ss can be distinguished from their non-LD peers on the basis of strategy use and recall. In Exp I, 105 LD and 105 non-LD 9-15 yr olds were administered a picture study/recall task, in which the strategies of interest were categorical organization during study and clustering during recall. In Exp II, 140 LD and 140 non-LD 11-17 yr olds were administered a paired-associate recall task, in which the strategy of interest was elaboration. In both studies, LD Ss earned lower mean recall scores than did the non-LD Ss. As a group, LD Ss did not differ from non-LD Ss in the use of categorical organization during study but showed less categorical clustering at recall. Fewer LD Ss used elaboration. Despite these differences, recall and strategy use were not useful predictors of classification as LD or non-LD and were only weak to moderate correlates of academic achievement. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Generalization from categorical memory tasks to prose by learning disabled adolescents.

Investigated how 60 learning disabled ([LD] aged 12 yrs to 14 yrs 5 mo) and 20 age-matched nondisabled (NLD) Ss would transfer the use of 4 study rules from instructed materials (pictures) to a prose recall task. Four phases spread over a 3-wk period were involved: pretest, informational phase (2 lessons), individualized training (3 lessons), and posttest. Results show that LDs performed poorly relative to NLD peers at pretest on categorical picture and prose recall tasks. 20 LD Ss who received rule-only instruction and 20 LD Ss who received rule-plus-prose examples instruction surpassed 20 LD Ss in the control condition at posttest on the picture task in rule use and in recall. On the prose task, a majority of the instructed LD Ss demonstrated transfer of the instructed rules. As a group, the instructed LD Ss no longer differed observably from NLD Ss in recall or in the strategies they employed to study and to retrieve. The clinical view that LD Ss are characterized by a failure to generalize was not supported by these findings. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How good is the evidence for a production deficiency among learning disabled students?

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 77(6) of Journal of Educational Psychology (see record 2008-10974-001). Figures 1 and 2 (p. 557 and 559, respectively) are reversed. The captions are correct, but Figure 1 should be above the caption for Figure 2 and Figure 2 should be above the caption for Figure 1.] Investigated the spontaneous use of mnemonic strategies by learning disabled (LD) and non-LD children and adolescents to examine whether LD Ss can be distinguished from their non-LD peers on the basis of strategy use and recall. In Exp I, 105 LD and 105 non-LD 9–15 yr olds were administered a picture study/recall task, in which the strategies of interest were categorical organization during study and clustering during recall. In Exp II, 140 LD and 140 non-LD 11–17 yr olds were administered a paired-associate recall task, in which the strategy of interest was elaboration. In both studies, LD Ss earned lower mean recall scores than did the non-LD Ss. As a group, LD Ss did not differ from non-LD Ss in the use of categorical organization during study but showed less categorical clustering at recall. Fewer LD Ss used elaboration. Despite these differences, recall and strategy use were not useful predictors of classification as LD or non-LD and were only weak to moderate correlates of academic achievement. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)