UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparision of the recategorized WISC-R scores of good and poor spellers Keung, Cecilia 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 K49.pdf [ 2.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054351.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054351-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054351-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054351-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054351-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054351-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054351-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054351-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054351.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OF THE RECATEGORIZED WISC-R SCORES OF GOOD AND POOR SPELLERS •A., C a l i f o r n i a State University, San Jose, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of Special Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1981 fc) C e c i l i a Keung, 1981 by CECILIA KEUNG MASTER OF ARTS i n } In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive coping of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of th i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written per-mission. Department of Education. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 2075 Wesbrook Place, Vancouver, B. C. Canada. V6T 1W5. DATE flfl/Mf 74 \C\kl ABSTRACT The WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) was administered to 29 good spellers and 31 poor spellers i n grade s i x . The obtained scaled scores were recategorized i n the manner suggested by Bannatyne (1974) into Spatial (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), Conceptual (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Comprehension), and Sequential (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic) categories. The poor spellers were highest (mean score) i n the Spatial category, intermediate i n the Conceptual category, and lowest i n the Sequential category. The good spellers were highest i n the Conceptual category, intermediate i n the Sequential category and lowest i n the Spatial category. These results are similar to those obtained i n Bannatyne's 1971 study of genetic dyslexic children, and other studies reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e for disabled and retarded readers. The implications of these findings are b r i e f l y discussed. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES i v LIST OF FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the Problem 2 Statement of the Problem 4 Definitions : 5 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7 WISC Subtests and Reading 7 WISC Subtests and Underachievers 15 WISC Subtests and Learning Disabled Children 18 WISC Subtests and Spelling Retardates 23 Other Approaches 26 Summary and Conclusions 27 I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY 29 Population and Sample 29 Instruments 30 Hypotheses 30 Procedures ' 31 Analysis of Data 32 IV RESULTS 33 Analysis of Means 38 Rank Frequency Analysis of Recategorized WISC-R Scores. 39 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY 44 APPENDIX A. (Letter to the Par t i c i p a t i n g Teachers) 48 APPENDIX B. (50-Word Spelling Test) 49 APPENDIX C. (Letter of Permission from Teachers to Parents) 50 i v LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1. Means WISC-R Subtest Scores of Good and Poor Spellers 34 TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of WISC-R Scores for the Good and Poor Spellers 35 TABLE 3. Means, t test and p Values when Comparing Good and Poor Spellers on WISC-R Scores 38 V LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1. Mean Recategorized WISC-R Subtest Scores for Total Sample, Good Spellers and Poor Spellers . . . . 37 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would l i k e to express her sincere gratitude to her advisors, namely, Dr. D. Kendall, Dr. S. Perkins, Dr. P. Koopman, and Dr. H. Ratzlaff, for their valuable assistance and directi o n throughout the study. The author also wishes to acknowledge the assistance and p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the teachers and principals i n the school d i s t r i c t involved i n this project, especially Elaine Friesen. Appreciation i s extended to Mrs. V. Perkins for her expertise and advice i n typing and proofing t h i s thesis. And, f i n a l l y , the author also wishes to thank her husband and family for their patience and support. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Spelling i s the correct sequencing of l e t t e r s from the alphabet to form words. Spelling i s basic to and an important element for effec-t i v e written communication and verbal learning. Spelling i s a sort of draft horse of written expression. The idea to be expressed may be impelling, the language expression of the best, but without the vehicle of spel-l i n g , the load of work i n writing cannot be eas i l y done. (Hildreth, 1955) The a b i l i t y to s p e l l well i s neither the least important nor the most important aspect of the writing task, but i t i s an essential aspect of the written expression. Hildreth (1955) has presented three cogent arguments for teaching children to s p e l l . 1. A b i l i t y to s p e l l enables the writer to concentrate on the ideas he wishes to convey rather than on the mechanics of writing. 2. A b i l i t y to s p e l l i s often regarded as evidence of scholarly achievement. J u s t i f i a b l y or not, incorrect spelling often creates an unfavourable impression beyond i t s true significance. 3. Correct spelling f a c i l i t a t e s the reading of what i s written. I t i s common courtesy the reader has a right to expect. Thus i t i s rather important for each of us to s p e l l every word correctly i n a l l written communication. Accurate spelling i s so generally associated with l i t e r a c y that the results school children achieve i n spelling have been known to influence public attitudes toward the s c h o o l s ' (Hanna, 1971) Some children experience d i f f i c u l t i e s i n learning to read and sp e l l despite an adequate i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotional environment. Instead of blaming the poor spellers, one should encourage them by pro-2 viding them with the means to improve t h e i r s k i l l s . The cause of poor spelling, i s often assumed to be lack of desire to learn. The best moti-vation for improvement i s success and one must learn how to give poor spellers some success i n s p e l l i n g . The act of spelling involves going from sounds to l e t t e r s , a matter of encoding. In s p e l l i n g , the c h i l d hears a sound or group of sounds that he himself either utters or thinks. He must decide which l e t t e r or groups of l e t t e r s w i l l suitably convey that sound or group of sounds to someone else reading what he has written. One can s p e l l o r a l l y without writing, but the function of sp e l l i n g i s effec t i v e and accurate communication i n wr i t i n g . One cannot t r u l y write without spelling because the purpose of writing i s to record words i n meaningful relationships. I t i s frequently observed that i n t e l l i g e n c e i s not as important a factor i n spe l l i n g as i t i s i n reading. Some bright children are poor spellers, and some d u l l children s p e l l much more accurately than the average of their achievement i n other subjects would indicate. Spelling requires more auditory and v i s u a l discrimination, memory, sequentialization, analysis and synthesis, and integration simultaneously than perhaps any other s k i l l . Thus i t i s evident that the majority of children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s have d e f i c i t s i n s p e l l i n g . (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967) Background to the Problem Spelling, as a written test, and perhaps as an oral test (because of the importance of sound blending) i s very much (but not entirely) determined by the eff i c i e n c y of the motor/kinesthetic/praxic/visuo-spatial output, or encoding processes, the sequential memory influence i n these pro-cesses, and the degree of automatization or habituation which has or has not been achieved i n that output. I t i s reasonable to suggest that children who find blending d i f f i c u l t i n reading, or l e t t e r reproduction and sequencing d i f f i c u l t i n s p e l l i n g , have a less e f f i c i e n t encoding vocal-motor programming of articulemes than do their peers. (Bannatyne, 1969) 3 Bannatyne (1968, 1971) has suggested that the WISC subtest scores of genetic dyslexic readers are best analyzed i n terms of categories he c a l l s S p a t i a l , Conceptual, and Sequential. This i s a departure from the usual practice of analyzing WISC Verbal Scale-Performance Scale differences. According to Bannatyne, subtests i n the Spatial category (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion) require the a b i l i t y to manipu-la t e objects d i r e c t l y or symbolically i n multi-dimensional space. Sub-tests i n the Conceptual category (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Compre-hension) require a b i l i t i e s more closely related to language functioning. Subtests i n the Sequential category (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic) require the a b i l i t y to reta i n sequences of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i i n short term memory storage. Bannatyne also reported that the genetic dys-l e x i c children received their highest scores i n the Spatial category, intermediate scores i n the Conceptual category, and their lowest scores i n the Sequential category. Naidoo (1972) s p e c i f i c a l l y noted that the early language d i f f i -c u l t i e s reported i n her series of learning disabled children occurred predominantly i n the reading plus spelling retardates as compared to the spelling only retardates. Thus there was an abnormally high incidence of Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies i n the children who have s p e c i f i c reading and spelling retardation rather than those who are only spelling retardates. However, children who are poor i n spel l i n g scored lower i n the D i g i t Span, Arithmetic, Coding, and Picture Arrangement subtests of the WISC, which explains some learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i n terms of an under-lyin g d i f f i c u l t y i n dealing with the sequential aspects of materials. Nelson and Warrington (1974) compared two groups of children who were (1) spelling-only retardates, and (2) spel l i n g and reading retardates on ind i v i d u a l WISC subtest scores. The spelling-only group scored highest 4 on Block Design, followed by S i m i l a r i t i e s and then the Vocabulary subtests, while the spelling and reading group scored highest on Picture Completion, followed by Block Design and then S i m i l a r i t i e s subtest. In 1977, Smith, Coleman, Dokecki and Davis concluded a study which assessed the u t i l i t y of Bannatyne's recategorization of subtest scaled scores on the WISC-R. The WISC-R was administered to 208 school-verified learning disabled (LD) children. The obtained subtest scaled scores were recategorized i n the manner suggested by Bannatyne (1974) into S p a t i a l , Conceptual, and Sequential categories. The mean Spatial score was s i g n i f i -cantly greater than the mean Conceptual score, which, i n turn, exceeded the Sequential score. The t o t a l sample was also subdivided into high and low IQ subgroups to determine i f the Sp a t i a l , Conceptual and Sequential pattern was affected by or independent of the l e v e l of i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning. High and low IQ subgroups exhibitied similar patterns of recategorized scores. Bannatyne (1974) i n further consideration of the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h i s pattern of a b i l i t i e s as reflected on a WISC p r o f i l e suggests, This strength i n the visuo-spatial area i s cha r a c t e r i s t i c of a large proportion of disabled readers. This suggests that there may be a subclass of disabled readers who are not necessarily genetic dyslexic, but who possess the same pattern of good visuo-spatial and poor (auditory sequential) memory a b i l i t i e s . Given the basic assumptions of Bannatyne suggested by his research and the expanded concept of th i s idea to a larger group of disabled learners, t h i s researcher decided to i d e n t i f y the following problem for investigation. Statement of the Problem The purpose of the present study was to compare the recategorized WISC-R scores of good and poor spellers, involving a Spatial score (Block 5 Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), a Conceptual score (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Comprehension), and a Sequential score (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic) as suggested by Bannatyne (1974). Definitions Conceptual. To group mentally, or picture essential elements of a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . (The abstraction may then be applied to another sit u a t i o n ) . Genetic Dyslexic. The term used to describe those persons (almost always male), who exhibit a syndrome of specific l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l d i s -a b i l i t i e s which r e s t r i c t their a b i l i t y to learn to read, s p e l l and write as well as their f u l l scale in t e l l i g e n c e would indicate. There i s a body of research evidence which indicates that the condition i s inherited. (Bannatyne, 1968) Learning D i s a b i l i t y . Learning d i s a b i l i t y refers to a retardation, disorder, or delayed development i n one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, or other school subjects r e s u l t -ing from a psychological handicap caused by a possible cerebral dys-function and/or emotional and/or behavioural disturbance. I t i s not the result of mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or c u l t u r a l or inst r u c t i o n a l factors. (Kirk, 1962) Poor Spellers. I t i s used p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h i s study for those students who scored 60% or less i n the sp e c i a l l y prepared spe l l i n g test. Sequencing A b i l i t y . Sequencing A b i l i t y , i s a time oriented s k i l l which may be active i n almost a l l sensori-motor a c t i v i t i e s , singly or i n combination, and memory i s usually involved. When reading, one must v i s u a l l y recognize sequences of l e t t e r s , sequences of graphemes and sequences of words; one must a u d i t o r i a l l y recognize the phoneme sequence the graphemes symbolize. In s p e l l i n g , a reverse process of r e c a l l i n g phonemes and graphemes occurs. Writing involves motor sequencing habits (Bannatyne, 1968) Visuo-Spatial A b i l i t y . Visuo-spatial a b i l i t y i s an i n t e l l e c t u a l oriented term which can be defined as the a b i l i t y to manipulate objects and their inter-relationships i n t e l l i g e n t l y i n multi-dimensional space. (Bannatyne, 1968) 7 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Various theories of causes of reading f a i l u r e i n children have been expounded within the l a s t half century. There have been those which t r i e d to explain the f a i l u r e s through concomitant emotional factors. Various research studies have attempted to show a pattern of mental a b i l i t i e s which characterize poor reading s k i l l i Every teacher has a number of pupils who do not achieve i n a particular subject to the extent that their measured general mental a b i l i t y would indicate. E s s e n t i a l l y , the problem raised i s as follows: Do most of these youngsters actually lack certain a b i l i t i e s or capacities basic to the reading process? The review of l i t e r a t u r e i s presented under six headings: WISC Subtests and Reading; WISC Subtests and Underachievers; WISC Subtests and the Learning Disabled Children; WISC Subtests and Spelling; Other Approaches; and Summary and Conclusions. WISC Subtests and Reading Bannatyne (1968) suggested that the WISC subtest scores of genetic dyslexic readers are best analyzed i n terms of categories which he called Spatial, Conceptual, and Sequential. According to Bannatyne (1974), sub-tests i n the Spatial category (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion) require the a b i l i t y to manipulate objects d i r e c t l y or sym-b o l i c a l l y i n multi-dimensional space. Subtests i n the Conceptual cate-gory (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Comprehension) require a b i l i t i e s more closely related to language functioning. Subtests i n the Sequential cate-gory (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic) require the a b i l i t y to re t a i n sequences of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i i n short term memory storage. Bannatyne (1971) reported that genetic dyslexic readers received their 8 highest scores i n the Spatial category, intermediate scores i n the Con-ceptual category, and their lowest scores i n the Sequential category. Long before Bannatyne's (1968) recategorized WISC subtest scores, a number of studies (Barratt, 1957; Burks, 1955; Coleman, 1963; Graham, 1952; H i r s t , 1960; and Nev i l l e , 1961) had attempted to ascertain whether there was a d i s t i n c t i v e pattern of i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s , as revealed by subscale scores on the WISC, which characterizes underachievers. Graham (1952) noted the s i m i l a r i t y between the p r o f i l e frequently obtained by the unsuccessful readers and that ascribed to adult hysterics, and tentatively hypothesized that reading, because of i t s communicative nature, lends i t s e l f as a ready symbol for repressed or suppressed r e s i s -tance to smothering, oppressive, or h o s t i l e emotional climates encountered by the c h i l d . To recheck the unsuccessful readers' Wechsler-Bellevue p r o f i l e , Wechsler tests which had been administered to 96 unsuccessful readers were withdrawn from the f i l e s of the Psychological Service for Children at the University of Denver and s t a t i s t i c a l l y compared. These tests had been gathered over a four-year period during the processes of c l i n i c a l diagnosis. They constituted the entire population so tested who met the requirements of the operational d e f i n i t i o n s of the unsuccessful reader. The unsuccessful reader was defined as a c h i l d between the ages of 8 - 0 and 16 - 11 who achieved either a Verbal or Performance Scale IQ of 90 or higher, who had f a l l e n 25% or more below the mean reading grade l e v e l on the Wide Range Achievement Test for a c h i l d of his chronological age. F i f t y - f o u r children had been given the Wechsler-Bellevue Form I (WBI); eleven had been given the Wechsler-Bellevue Form I I (WBII); and thirty-one had been given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). The results are indicated as follows: The mean F u l l Scale IQ for a l l WB tests was 97.1 and for a l l WISC tests, 100.3. The mean 9 Verbal Scale IQ for a l l WB tests was 88.4, and for a l l WISC tests, 98.9. The mean Performance Scale IQ for a l l WB tests was 107.1, and for a l l WISC tests, 101.7. I t was found that for the 96 Wechsler Intelligence Scales administered to the unsuccessful readers, Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, Information, D i g i t Symbol, and Vocabulary averaged below the mean. Object Assembly, Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement and Block Design were generally the higher performance scale tests. In another study, Flanary (1954) compared 90 disabled readers (who were one or more years below the expected level) with 20 normal readers. The subjects ranged from 12 to 16 years of age, and the IQ of the disabled readers were from 67 to 128. The subjects were a l l given the WISC. The scores c l e a r l y indicated that the reading disabled adoles-cents did well on the Block Design, Object Assembly and Picture Completion subtests, but scored well below the means on D i g i t Span, Coding, and Picture Arrangement subtests. The normal readers, on the other hand, did well on the Comprehension, Picture Arrangement and S i m i l a r i t i e s subtests and not so well on the Di g i t Span, Coding and the Vocabulary subtests. Incidentally, when the subtest scores were re-arranged as suggested by Bannatyne (1971) into Spatial, Conceptual and Sequential, the disabled readers corresponded with the findings of Bannatyne's genetic dyslexic readers i n that their Spatial score was the highest, next was the Con-ceptual scores, and the lowest was the Sequential scores, while the normal readers had a different pattern. Their highest scores were i n the Conceptual category, intermediate i n the Spatial category, and the lowest, also, i n the Sequential category. Burke and Bruce carried out a study i n 1955 on poor and good readers i n the San Gabriel School D i s t r i c t i n Iowa. The subjects of this investigation included 11 good readers (one or more years above 10 grade l e v e l on the reading section of the Wide Range Achievement Test), and poor readers (one or more years below grade l e v e l on the reading section of the WRAT), a l l of whom were given the WISC. They ranged i n grade levels from th i r d through eighth grades. The 11 good readers were made up of 6 g i r l s and 5 boys; the group of 31 poor readers contained 5 g i r l s and 26 boys. A l l of the children had IQ scores above 90, therefore they reasonably could be expected to read at least at grade l e v e l . The average F u l l Scale IQ score of the good group was 117, and the average F u l l Scale IQ score of the poor group was 101. The 31 poor readers did well on the three subtests, Comprehension, Block Design, and Picture Arrangement, and low on Coding, Information, and the Arithmetic subtests. In comparing these scores with the scores of the small group of good readers, i t was noted that poor readers did best on the Picture Arrangement subtest i n which the good readers were poorest. These investigators concluded that the poor readers scored low-est on those subtests most dependent on memory function and highest on those least dependent on symbolic memory. The poor readers, as a group, approached learning situations i n a more concrete manner as a result of an i n a b i l i t y to handle abstractions. Since the reading process consists inherently of abstractions strongly depending on memory function, these children are handicapped. The good readers, on the other hand, do not show this lack of a b i l i t y to use abstractions and have much more reten-tiv e a b i l i t y . N e v i l l e (1961) compared the WISC scores of a group of 35 children who were retarded two or more years i n reading with a group of 35 non-retarded readers. The groups were matched for IQ, grade l e v e l , and sex. A l l of the children had WISC IQ's of 90 or above and a l l were boys. In 11 addition, the subjects i n both groups had been referred to the c l i n i c because of a suspected reading problem. There were no subjects included i n either group who were referred for further physical or psychological evaluation. The scores of retarded readers differed s i g n i f i c a n t l y from non-retarded readers i n performance and verbal tasks i n general as well as in the Information, Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, Picture Arrangement, and Block Design subtests. N e v i l l e found that the retarded readers scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the mean on the Information, Arithmetic and D i g i t Span subtests, and s i g n i f i c a n t l y above the mean on the Picture Arrangement and the Block Design subtests. He also noted that the retarded readers do poorest on those subtests more nearly resembling verbal-type school learn-ing and those requiring sustained concentration. However, their best per-formances occur i n those subtests c l e a r l y removed from verbal s k i l l s and in a c t i v i t i e s divorced from school tasks. I t was also suggested that their excellent performance on the Picture Arrangement subtest results from long practice at using pictures as clues to the context of the printed page, which they are unable to read. In 1963, McLean compared the WISC subtest performances of four groups of elementary school boys i n grades 4, 5, and 6, who apparently differed only with respect to emotional adjustment and/or reading a b i l i t y . There were 21 children i n each group, and they were ca r e f u l l y matched with IQ ranging from 90 to 110, and ages between 10 and 12 years. These four groups were labelled according to c r i t e r i a as well adjusted retarded readers and well adjusted non-retarded readers; and as emotionally d i s -turbed retarded readers and emotionally disturbed non-retarded readers. The major purpose was to determine what effects the adjustment factor has 12 on the WISC subtest p r o f i l e s of retarded and non-retarded readers. A l l four groups had F u l l Scale IQ's f a l l i n g close to the mean of their age group. Inter-group differences i n mean Performance and F u l l Scale IQ's were non-significant. Comparison of Verbal IQ's revealed both retarded groups to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower i n verbal a b i l i t i e s than the non-retarded reader groups. Intra-group comparisons also revealed the retarded readers to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower Verbal than Performance IQ's. No intra-group differences i n IQ appeared i n the non-retarded reader groups. A compari-son of the subtest raw score means of the four groups revealed no s i g n i f i -cant differences existed between groups on f i v e subtests. These were Comprehension, S i m i l a r i t i e s , Picture Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly. Either one or both of the non-retarded reader groups scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than one or both of the retarded reader groups on a l l other subtests, except one. On Picture Completion, both retarded groups scored higher than both non-retarded reader groups. Both the emotionally disturbed and well adjusted disabled readers had the same pattern of recategorized scaled scores as predicted by Bannatyne, with Spatial greater than Conceptual, which, in.turn, was greater than the Sequential. Johnson et a l (1965) had a similar result with 60 disabled readers. The 60 children between the ages of 7 and 18 years and between the F u l l Scale IQ of 89 and 129, who were c l a s s i f i e d primarily as dyslexic, were studied to determine the nature of their problem and to explore the most effective means of remediation. A l l of the children were referred because of school d i f f i c u l t i e s , and a l l were enrolled i n the educational training program at the In s t i t u t e for Language. Disorders. Every c h i l d was seen for a diagnostic study and had at least three months of remedial work 13 which further c l a r i f i e d or substantiated, the o r i g i n a l diagnosis. The mean score of the Spatial category was 11.86, for the Con-ceptual category 10.66, and for the Sequential category 9.46, thus mani-festing the same pattern as predicted by Bannatyne with his learning d i s -abled subjects. Taken as a group, the mean scores of the int e l l i g e n c e subtests are not p a r t i c u l a r l y revealing, with the exception of auditory d i g i t span, for which the mean score was 8.5. The results showed that these disabled readers scored highest on Block Design, Object Assembly, Picture Arrangement, and S i m i l a r i t i e s subtests, and poorest on D i g i t Span, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary subtests. In 1969, Lyle et a l compared 54 retarded readers (experimental group) and 54 adequate achievers (control group). A l l were selected from primary schools i n Sydney. Each group consisted of 9 subjects from each of the six primary school grades, which ranged i n age from 6 years to 12 years. Schools were situated i n middle class suburban areas to reduce the probability of selecting children whose poor achievement was due primarily to adverse conditions for home study. The subjects were each given the WISC test. The normal readers scored highest on Arithmetic, Information, Vocabulary, and Coding subtests, while the disabled readers scored highest on Picture Arrangement, Picture Completion, Block Design, and Comprehension subtests, and poorest on Coding, Arithmetic, and In-formation subtests. However, the results of the subtests of both groups showed the same p r o f i l e of a b i l i t i e s that Bannatyne (1971) found for the disabled readers, i . e . , highest scores i n the Spatial category, i n t e r -mediate scores i n the Conceptual category, and lowest scores i n the Sequential category. In 1971, Hunter and Johnson compared 20 boys with reading d i s -a b i l i t y and aged from 7 to 11 years and from 11 to 4 years with 20 normal, 14 matched controls to examine how non-readers d i f f e r from children who read at age-grade l e v e l or better. The reading d i s a b i l i t y group had a mean retardation i n reading proficiency of 2.4 years; the control group was accelerated i n reading s k i l l s by a mean of 1.9 years. Most of the sub-jects were i n either the fourth or f i f t h grades i n public school. The 4 th i r d graders i n the study were "holdovers" because of severe d e f i c i t s i n reading. Mean age-grade l e v e l for the reading disabled readers was 4.2; mean age-grade l e v e l for the control group was 4.7. Each c h i l d was given the WISC. The WISC scores for the two groups were as follows: F u l l Scale WISC scores for the reading disabled readers ranged from 92 to 131 (X = 112.3, S.D. = 9.7), and for the control group from 93 to 136 (X = 118.8, S.D. = 10.0). The difference between the groups with respect to WISC F u l l Scale scores was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , nor was there a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between reading disabled readers and control group readers r e l a t i v e to WISC Performance IQ's, which were 112.3 and 111.6 for the reading disabled group and the control group respectively. Reading disabled readers c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y demonstrated higher Perform-ance IQ's than Verbal IQ's. A l l reading disabled readers had a Perform-ance IQ of 90 or above. The control group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior to the reading disabled readers on WISC Verbal IQ and on WISC subtests on Information, Vocabulary, D i g i t Span, Arithmetic, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Coding. A "tested attention" score (the sum of WISC, Arithmetic and Di g i t Span subtests) was compared for each c h i l d . Tested attention scores not only discriminated s i g n i f i c a n t l y between reading disabled readers and control group, but also correlated highly with reading a b i l i t y , as measured by WRAT. 15 WISC Subtests arid Uriderachievers Altus (1956) conducted a study dealing with 25 children with normal intelligence and severe learning d i f f i c u l t i e s . A l l children i n the sample had been referred to the Guidance Department of the Santa Barbara County Schools by their teachers because of severe academic d i s -a b i l i t i e s . A l l had F u l l WISC IQ's of 80 or more, spoke only English at home, had taken at least four subtests on each WISC scale, and were be-tween t h i r d and eighth grade when given the reading test. A group of 25 children from 12 elementary schools met these c r i t e r i a . Twenty-four of them were boys - an exaggerated representation of the usual finding that boys outnumber g i r l s as reading problems. The intel l i g e n c e of the group was normal. Mean WISC IQ's were 97.8,100.4 and 98.6 on the Verbal, Performance, and F u l l Scales respectively. There was less v a r i a b i l i t y i n the sample than i n an unselected population as shown by standard deviations of 9.9, 10.3 and 9.2 IQ points on the same scales. Since the mean Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancy was ne g l i g i b l e , i t was c l e a r l y not d i f f e r e n -t i a l l y diagnostic. However, the subtest patterning appears to be f a i r l y d i s t i n c t i v e . Coding and Arithmetic are s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than Vocab-ulary, D i g i t Span, Picture Completion, Object Assembly and Picture Arrangement at the .01 l e v e l of confidence. The Information subtest was sig n f i c a n t l y lower than Picture Completion at the .01 l e v e l , and lower than Vocabulary and Digit Span at the .02 l e v e l of confidence. Had the positive correlations among the various subtests been taken into account i n computing the significance of differences between subtest means, the chances of true differences would have been increased and s i m i l a r i t i e s would probably also have been included i n the "low" subtests. 16 The obtained WISC pattern was s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r to the findings reported by Altus (1956) regarding the d i f f e r e n t i a l v a l i d i t y of Wechsler-Bellevue subtests i n predicting graduation of trainees from a camp for i l l i t e r a t e soldiers. In Altus' 1956 study, Arithmetic, Information and Digit Symbol (Coding) subtests were shown to be highly eff e c t i v e i n pre-d i c t i n g graduation. The mean Spatial score was 10.6, mean Conceptual score was 10.03, and the mean Sequential score was 9.23. Approaching the problem from a somewhat different point of view, Barratt and Baumgarter (1957) u t i l i z e d two groups of elementary school children, 30 achievers and 30 non-achievers. Achievers and non-achievers were defined by teacher ratings of reading, arithmetic, and general school performance. They found that achievers had an average WISC F u l l Scale IQ of 117, and the non-achievers an average of 87, and that the achievers scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on a l l the subtests of the C a l i f o r n i a Achieve-ment Test. On the WISC, achievers ranked highest on the Information, Vocabulary, Arithmetic, Comprehension, and S i m i l a r i t i e s subtests. Non-achievers ranked highest on Coding, Object Assembly, Picture Arrangement, and Block Design subtests. H i r s t (1960) u t i l i z e d a two-way analysis on the WISC subtest scores of 30 remedial reading classes. A l l had WISC IQ's of 89 or above (mean 109), a l l were retarded 6 months or more i n reading achievement i n rel a t i o n to their Mental Age, and a l l were within the age range of 8 to 0 and 13 to 6 (mean 10.3). The underachievers, evaluated as a t o t a l group of underachievers, scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y above the mean on the Picture Completion and Picture Arrangement subtests, and below the mean on Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, and Coding subtests. Approximately the same results were found for mild and severe underachievers, except that the 17 severe uriderachievers also made scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y above the mean on Object Assembly and below the mean on the S i m i l a r i t i e s and Vocabulary subtests. In 1973, Bush and Mattson compared the WISC test pattern of 28 bright and gi f t e d underachievers with those of 23 bright and gifted achievers. A comparison also was made of 36 normal l e v e l underachievers and with 22 normal l e v e l achievers. The subjects for this 1973 study were selected from among underachieving children who had been referred for psychological evaluation from the public schools by parents, teachers, and doctors. C r i t e r i a for subjects were f a i l u r e by grade or subject, and WRAT reading and spelling discrepant standard scores of 14 points, and arithmetic discrepant scores of 12 points below thei r WISC F u l l Scale IQ. The i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v els were established on the basis of standard devi-ation of intelligence quotients. The normal l e v e l group IQ's were limited to the range of 83 to 117. The bright and gifted group was limited to IQ's of 118 and above on either the WISC Verbal or Performance scales. The major instrument used was the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Child-ren. The data was then analyzed by a series of successive comparisons, and tests were run to determine s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Means were f i r s t established on subtests: Information, Comprehension, Arithmetic, Similar-i t i e s , Vocabulary, D i g i t Span, Picture Completion, Picture Arrangement, Block Design, Object Assembly, and Coding. Following t h i s , ' t ' tests were run between these means on the groups of underachievers and achievers at the normal l e v e l and at the bright and gifted l e v e l . A l l four groups did not have the same pattern of what Bannatyne predicted of the gene-t i c dyslexic readers i n 1968. However, the four groups scored highest i n the Conceptual category, next the Spatial category, and lowest also i n the Sequential category. 18 WISC Subtests arid the Learning Disabled Children In 1963, Coleman was concerned with the question of whether a learning disordered population showed a d i s t i n c t i v e pattern of i n t e l l e c -tual a b i l i t i e s as revealed i n WISC subtests. The subjects were 126 under-achievers and 20 overachievers referred to the Psychology C l i n i c School (PCS) for psychological evaluation. A l l of the underachievers were one or more years retarded i n achievement in r e l a t i o n to their age and grade placement as reflected on the C a l i f o r n i a Achievement Test (CAT) or the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT). The mean underachievement was approxi-mately 3 years, with a range of 1 to 6. The mean WISC F u l l Scale IQ for the underachievers was approximately 100, with a range from 70 to 136; the chronological age range from 7.5 to 16 with a mean of approxi-mately 11. The group of overachievers was one or more years advanced i n re l a t i o n to age grade expectancy as reflected by scores on the CAT or SAT. The range of overachievement was 1 to 4 years, with a mean of approximate-l y 2.5. The overachievers had a mean WISC F u l l Scale IQ of 119, with a range of 111 to 137. The chronological age range was approximately 10 to 15, with a mean of s l i g h t l y over 12. A H of the overachievers had been referred to the PCS because of f a i l i n g grades i n their regular school setting. The key findings of Coleman's investigation were as follows: (1) Underachievers as a group scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y low on WISC subtests, which factor analytic studies have shown to be heavily loaded with school type learning, sustained concentration and memory factors. Conversely, they made s i g n i f i c a n t l y high scores on WISC subtests heavily loaded with perceptual organization and informal learning. (2) The WISC pattern characteristic of underachievers was not affected by age, and affected 19 only s l i g h t l y by inte l l i g e n c e and degree of underachievement, thus point-ing to the r e l a t i v e homogeneity of the patterning of i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i -t i e s among underachievers as reflected on the WISC. (3) Overachievers, experiencing serious academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , showed a cha r a c t e r i s t i c WISC pattern which differed markedly from that of underachievers, having high scores on subtests heavily loaded with school type learning, and a s i g -n i f i c a n t l y lower mean score on the Performance as contrasted with the Verbal Scale. Overachievers also showed a high degree of scatter on the WISC subtests, which may r e f l e c t emotional problems relevant to their academic d i f f i c u l t i e s . In 1966, Schiffman, et a l , had a similar finding with 240 children. The group of children studied i n the Central Evaluation C l i n i c for C h i l d -ren, was a highly selected and screened population who had been referred for evaluation. I t was decided to study a large number of children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s found i n one large public school (Baltimore County) system. Accordingly, 240 children with severe reading problems which could not be remediated by supplementary pedagogic methods were studied i n an experimental project i n an effo r t to c l a r i f y the nature and char-a c t e r i s t i c s of these children. The children were frequently character-ized by associative learning d i s a b i l i t y , inadequacies i n memory span, deficiencies i n concept formation, and possible neurological and/or emotional complications. Pupils with these problems demand individual and small group instruction on a c l i n i c a l basis by spe c i a l l y trained personnel. I t i s for these reasons that the t a c t i l e and kinesthetic techniques are usually necessary. The children: were each given a WISC test. The children as a group did poorly on D i g i t Span, followed by Information, Arithmetic, and Coding. The results suggested that d i s -abled readers as a whole show the same p r o f i l e of a b i l i t i e s that 20 Bannatyne suggested for the genetic dyslexic readers - highest scores i n the Spa t i a l category (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), intermediate scores i n the Conceptual category (Vocabulary, Comprehension, and S i m i l a r i t i e s ) , and lowest scores i n the Sequential category (Digit Span, Coding and Arithmetic). In 1971, Ackerman, Peters and Dykman reported a study of the WISC pr o f i l e s of children with s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . The subjects were 82 boys with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and 34 academically adequate boys (controls). They were a l l Caucasians, and they ranged i n age from 8 years to 11 years and 11 months. No subjects were c u l t u r a l l y impoverished; most were from middle class families. A l l were i n good physical health and without l i m i t i n g physical handicaps. A l l the children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s had i n common the experience of f a i l u r e or imminent f a i l u r e i n school despite having what on the surface appeared to be the necessary assets for success. That i s , each c h i l d included had either a Verbal or Performance IQ on the WISC of 90 or higher; he had no l i m i t i n g physical handicaps; he came from a c u l t u r a l l y adequate home; and, insofar as could be determined from home and school reports, his d i f f i c u l t y i n school did not stem from emotional i n s t a b i l i t y . The control group was chosen from the L i t t l e Rock Public School i n Arkansas, while the experimental group was chosen from the children who were referred to the University of Arkansas Child Study Center because of school problems. A l l controls were given the WISC by one of several psychological examiners i n the Child Guidance C l i n i c . Since a l l of the children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s had been given the WISC either by members of the c l i n i c s t a f f or by school examiners as part of their diagnostic work-up, only those WISC's adminis-tered more than 15 months pr i o r to laboratory study were repeated by the 21 c l i n i c examiners. The disabled readers scored (mean score) 11.43 on the Conceptual category, 10.86 on the Spatial category, and 9.4 on the Sequential category, while the able readers scored 12.53 on the Con-ceptual category, 11.3 on the Spatial category, and 11.1 on the Sequen-t i a l category. Both groups scored highest on the Conceptual category, next highest on the Spatial category, and lowest on the Sequential cate-gory. < In 1977, Monte et a l reported a study i n which 208 children enrolled i n 23 learning d i s a b i l i t y classrooms i n a large metropolitan school system i n the F a l l of 1974. Children i n these 23 classrooms con-stituted approximately 79% of a l l children assigned to learning d i s a b i l i t y classes i n the school system. The remaining 21% of learning disabled children i n the school system were enrolled i n two schools which declined to participate i n the study. Although i t was impossible to v e r i f y , i t was f e l t that the children i n these two schools were comparable. The learning d i s a b i l i t y r e f e r r a l procedure was uniform across the school sys-tem and schools with learning d i s a b i l i t y classrooms were feeder schools, with children bussed to the special classrooms from schools without learn-d i s a b i l i t y classes. A l l children were school-verified as learning d i s -abled and at the time of testing had been enrolled i n learning d i s a b i l i t y classes for an average of 12 academic months. The school system i n i t i a l -l y diagnosed the population as learning disabled by the following c r i t e r i a : (1) Severe academic d e f i c i t s , usually of two or more years, and i n one or more areas. (2) A F u l l Scale IQ score of at least 75 on previous testing. (.3) No severe problem i n v i s i o n and/or hearing, as indicated by corrected v i s i o n of at least 20/40 and corrected audition to at least the 30 db l e v e l for pure tones through the c r i t i c a l speech range. The children 22 ranged i n age from 6 years and 3 months to 12 years and 1 month. The mean age was 9 years and 9 months. The 208 children were 76% male and 81% Caucasian. The WISC-R was administered i n d i v i d u a l l y to children by trained personnel of the George Peabody College Child Study Center. The sample was divided into high and low IQ subgroups by using a normality' c r i t e r i o n that embodied both an ove r a l l ( F u l l Scale) minium IQ (76) and a requirement that the c h i l d obtain either a Verbal or Performance IQ of at least 90. Of the t o t a l sample of 208 school-labeled learning disabled children asses-sed i n th i s study, 37% were found not to have the prerequisite of normal i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y as determined by the c r i t e r i o n of a F u l l Scale of at least 76 and either a Verbal or Performance IQ of at least 90. The patterns of mean WISC-R subtest scaled scores, however, were similar for the two subgroups, especially among the performance subtests. For both subgroups, the highest mean Verbal scaled score was obtained on the Comprehension subtest, while the lowest scores were obtained on the Arithmetic and Information subtests. On the Performance subtests, moreover, the high-est mean scores for both subgroups were obtained on the Object Assembly and Picture Completion subtests, while the lowest score was obtained on Coding. For both subgroups, the mean Performance IQ was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the mean Verbal IQ. For both subgroups, 4 of the 5 Per-formance subtest mean scores were greater than the highest Verbal sub-test mean score. Yet i n both subgroups the f i f t h Performance subtest mean (Coding) was almost as depressed as the lowest Verbal subtest means (Information and Arithmetic). The "peaks" and "valleys" i n subtest scaled scores hypothesized by Bannatyne (1968, 1971, 1974) are cl e a r l y manifest i n t h i s study, and the pattern of subtest scores corresponded closely to his e a r l i e r pre-dictions. As we have seen, Bannatyne advocated that subtest scaled 23 scores should be recategorized into Spatial (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), Conceptual (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Com-prehension), and Sequential (Coding, Arithmetic, and D i g i t Span) categories, and predicted that learning disabled children would score highest on the Spatial category, lowest on the Sequential category, and intermediate on the Conceptual category. The r e l a t i v e l y depressed scores on Coding and Arithmetic, and the r e l a t i v e l y elevated scores on Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion i n th i s investigation provided some sup-port for Bannatyne's recategorization scheme. WISC Subtests and Spelling Rice (1970) divided 190 subjects into six di f f e r e n t learning d i s -a b i l i t y categories and one non-disability category: (1) reading, sp e l l i n g and arithmetic, (2) reading and s p e l l i n g , (3) reading only, (4) spel l i n g and arithmetic, (5) spelling only, (6) arithmetic only, and l a s t l y (7) no si g n i f i c a n t d i s a b i l i t y categories. The majority of these cases have come from average or above average socioeconomic backgrounds where i t appears that the child's early development provided adequate environmental stimu-l a t i o n , adequate motivation, and adequate educational opportunities. This c l i n i c a l population, due to the fact that the most serious implications of s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l deprivation have been eliminated, provides an ex-cellent opportunity to study learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . A close inspection of the data gathered might as s i s t i n viewing the question of why many students f a i l i n the usual school setting when their early developmental opportunities are those usually considered as quite acceptable. In the f i r s t category (reading, sp e l l i n g and arithmetic), there were 38 subjects i n which 35 of them were male and 3 of them female. Their age ranged from 7 years and^4 months to 14 years and 10 months, with a mean age of nine 24 years and 11 months. Their grade ranged from grade one to grade nine. The F u l l Scale IQ ranged from 88 to 133 with a mean of 109.55. Their Verbal IQ ranged from 85 to 129, with a mean Verbal IQ of 106.55. Their Performance IQ ranged from 86 to 135 with a mean of 110.95. In the second category (reading and spelling d i s a b i l i t y ) , there were 43 subjects i n which 36 of them were male and 7 of them female. Their ages ranged from 6 years and 6 months to 15iyears and 3 months, with a mean age of 10 years and 2 months. Their grade placement was from grade one to grade ten. The F u l l Scale IQ ranged from 87 to 120 with a mean F u l l Scale IQ of 100.94; the Verbal IQ ranged from 79 to 138 with a mean of 99.65; and the Perform-ance IQ between 89 and 129, with a mean of 103.19. In the fourth category, (spelling and reading d i s a b i l i t y ) , there were 4 subjects i n which 3 of them were male and 1 female. Their age ranged from 8 years and 2 months to 11 years and 1 month, with a mean age of 10 years. The grade placement was from grade three to f i v e . The F u l l Scale IQ ranged from 106 to 124, with a mean of 115.50; their Verbal IQ between 104 and 137, with a mean of 119.0; and their Performance IQ was between 105 and 115, with a mean of 108.75. The f i f t h category, (spelling only d i s a b i l i t y ) , there were 10 subjects with 8 male and 2 female. Their age ranged from 8 years to 12 years and 3 months, with a mean of 9 years and 2 months. Their grade placement was from grade two to s i x . Their F u l l Scale IQ ranged from 89 to 108, with a mean F u l l Scale IQ of 98.0. Their Verbal IQ was between 89 and 110, with a mean of 97. Their Performance IQ was between 87 and 110, with a mean IQ of 99.7. Only the Spelling d i s a b i l i t y group manifested the pattern as predicted by Bannatyne i n which the. Spatial category i s greater than the Conceptual category, which, i n turn, i s greater than the Sequential category. The other 3 groups had a different pattern of 25 Conceptual greater than Spa t i a l , which, i n turn, was greater than the Sequential category. Naidoo (1972) also compared two groups of children. There were 41 boys, who had spelling problems, while the control group consisted of 42 boys who did not have spe l l i n g problems. The mean F u l l Scale Score for the spelling retardates was 119, while the mean Verbal IQ was 117.3, and the mean Performance IQ was 117.7. The control group had a mean F u l l Scale IQ of 120.5 with a mean Verbal IQ of 120.5 and a mean Performance IQ of 116.4. The result showed that the sp e l l i n g retardates did well on the Block Design subtest, followed by the Vocabulary and the S i m i l a r i t i e s sub-tests, while the control group did well on the Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Block Design subtests. The mean F u l l Scale, Verbal and Performance IQ's of the spel l i n g retardates were very similar to those of their con-t r o l s . A discrepancy of 20 points or more between the Verbal and Perform-ance IQ was found with equal frequency i n both positive and negative direc-tions among the spelling retardates, whereas among the controls the Verbal IQ tended to be higher. The spel l i n g retardates obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower scores on Information, Arithmetic, D i g i t Span, and Coding. The spell i n g retardates had a mean Spatial score of 13.5, a mean Conceptual score of 13.4, and a mean Sequential score of 10.7. The control group had a mean Spatial score of 12.8, a mean Conceptual score of 13.3, and a mean Sequential score of 12.4. In 1974, 71 children from the age of 8 to 14 years were chosen by Nelson and Warrington. They compared 17 spelling-only retardates of whom 15 were male and 2 female, and 54 spelling-and-reading retardates of whom 45 were male and 9 female. The mean chronological age of the spelling retardates was 12.5, and their mean Verbal IQ was 114.2, and 26 their Performance IQ was 117.6. The mean chronological age of the s p e l l -ing- and- reading retardates was 11.6, with a mean Verbal IQ of 99.1, and a mean Performance IQ of 113.4. Each c h i l d was given the WISC test. The result confirmed that the children who were retarded i n spel l i n g produced a different pattern than those who were spelling and reading retarded. Unlike the spelling-and-reading retardates, the spelling-only retardates did not have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y low verbal IQ. However, l i k e the s p e l l i n g -and-reading retardates, they also scored the lowest on the D i g i t Span sub-test. Both groups had the lowest scores i n the Sequential category. But only the spelling-and-reading retardates had the same pattern as predicted by Bannatyne (1968) with the highest scores i n the Spatial category, intermediate i n the Conceptual category, and the lowest i n the Sequential category. Other Approaches The considerable l i t e r a t u r e on other aspects of diagnostic i n t e r -pretation of WISC and WISC-R scores w i l l not be reviewed here. However, attempts to relate patterns of subtest scores to perceptual and cognitive styles (e.g. Keough, 1973; Stevenson,. 1980) to broad groupings of per-ceptual d i s a b i l i t i e s (e.g. Rourke, et a l , 1973; M i l l e r , et a l , 1978), and to the development of remedial hypothesis for disabled readers (Wallbrown, et a l , 1979) should be noted. There has, i n fa c t , been considerable d i s -agreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the extent to which i t i s legitimate, solely on the basis of WISC or WISC-R scores, to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between populations or subgroups of learning or academically disabled children. In t h i s context, the concluding remarks of the protagonists i n a recent controversy i n the Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s are worth 27 quoting: A larger question i s one that would interest most readers... that i s , are their scores on the WISC-R d i s t i n c t i v e enough to separate out certain groups of students? . . . I f one uses WISC-R scores to show d i s t i n c t i v e characteristics of certain subgroups, then one i s obligated to show that these scores are different from normal. Otherwise they are not d i s t i n c t i v e . ( M i l l e r , 1980) What we presented was a set of c l i n i c a l hypotheses that may prove useful i n generating remedial strategies for c e r tain children (but not a l l ) i f they are congruent with other information. In fa c t , we s p e c i f i c a l l y caution that 'a WISC-R p r o f i l e never constitutes an adequate basis for generating a remedial strategy, but i f used with other information, i t can sometimes provide a valuable source of information about a child's a b i l i t y pattern'. (Wallbrown, et a l , 1980) Summary and Conclusions According to Bannatyne (1974), subtests i n the Spatial category (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), require the a b i l i t y to manipulate objects d i r e c t l y or symbolically i n m u l t i -dimensional space. Subtests i n the Conceptual category (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s and Comprehension), require a b i l i t i e s more closely related to language functioning. Subtests i n the Sequential category (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic), require the a b i l i t y to r e t a i n sequences of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i i n short term memory storage. A review of studies u t i l i z i n g Bannatyne's theory of recategoriz-ing WISC subtests into S p a t i a l , Conceptual, and Sequential categories shows that disabled readers, underachievers, and spel l i n g retardates usually manifest a pattern i n which Spatial scores are greater than 28 the Conceptual scores, which, i n turn, are greater than the Sequential. These results are similar to those found by Bannatyne i n 1968 and 1971, which apply to genetic dyslexics. Only two of the studies reviewed included analyses of s p e l l i n g performance. I t would be of interest to discover whether a population defined according to i t s spelling performance would f i t Bannatyne's theory. 29 CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to compare the recategorized WISC-R scores of good and poor spellers, involving a Spatial score, a Conceptual score, and a Sequential score, as suggested by Bannatyne (1974). In this chapter, the description of the nature of the sample, the materials used to c o l l e c t the data, and the procedures followed are discussed under the headings: Population and Sample; Instruments; Hypotheses; Procedures; and Analysis of Data. Population and Sample The population for this study was composed of grade si x students in a school d i s t r i c t i n the Vancouver Metropolitan area. The sample con-sisted of grade six students i n f i v e classes from four volunteering schools within the school d i s t r i c t . The t o t a l number of students i n the fi v e classes was 115. I t was anticipated that each of the two groups of students (good and poor spellers) would reach an N of 35 students. However, only 29 of the good spellers (14 males and 15 females) and 31 of the poor spellers (22 males and 9 females) participated i n the taking of the WISC-R standardized test. The children ranged i n age from 11 years and 2 months to 13 years and 3 months. The mean age was 11 years and 11 months. The population selected was thus defined solely and s p e c i f i c a l l y with respect to performance on a spelling test and on the WISC-R. No other diagnostic assumptions were made regarding other a b i l i t i e s or d i s -a b i l i t i e s i n this population. 30 Instruments 1. Spelling Tests. A 50-word spelling test was composed by taking a random sample of 50 words from the words that had been taught by the teachers using Spelling i n Language Arts, 1964, since September 1979. As a l l the students had studied these words as part of the spelling curriculum, i t was considered to be a valid.way of compiling an appropriate spelling test. 2. WISC-R. The WISC-R test was given to each student i n the sample of good and poor spellers i n d i v i d u a l l y , and each subtest score was analyzed i n terms of Bannatyne's Sp a t i a l , Conceptual, and Sequential scores as well as the usual Verbal and Performance scores. The WISC-R test was chosen because i t was necessary to test Bannatyne's theory and because the WISC manual reported s p l i t half r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for the Verbal, Performance, and F u l l IQ scales and for 10 of the 12 subtests. Coefficients are presented for ages 1\, 10%, and 13h years. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are .92 to .95 for the F u l l Scale, .88 to .96 for the Verbal Scale, and .86 to .90 for the Performance Scale. R e l i a b i l i t y and s t a b i l i t y studies provide continued support for the WISC as a r e l i a b l e and stable instrument (eg.Caldwell, 1954; Gehman & Matyas, 1956; Jones, 1962) for normal, emotionally disturbed, and mentally retarded children, and that i t pro-vides stable IQ's. The Verbal, Performance, and F u l l IQ's on the WISC are standard scores with means of 100 and standard deviations of 15. This procedure for calculating IQ's i s p a r t i c u l a r l y valuable for IQ's at each age l e v e l are comparable throughout the range of the test. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference = .05) between the mean score (Spatial: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and the mean score of designated good sp e l l e r . 31 Hypothesis 2. There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference ( <=< = .05) between the mean score (Conceptual: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and the mean score of designated good spellers. Hypothesis 3. There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference (<=< = .05) between the mean score (Sequential: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and the mean score of designated good spell e r s . Procedures Five classes of grade s i x students (115 students) i n four schools in a Vancouver area were administered a 50-word spe l l i n g test. Each grade six class teacher was given the spelling l i s t with written instructions, and was asked to administer the spel l i n g test to a l l subjects within the same week. After the spelling test was scored, the results were placed i n rank order. The top 35 students were selected to comprise the group of good spellers, and the bottom 35 was selected to comprise the group of poor spellers. A l e t t e r was sent home from the teachers to the parents of the students i n each group asking for parents' permission for thei r son/ daughter to participate i n the study. Of the 35 good s p e l l e r s , 6 parents refused permission for the children to participate i n the study, and thus the size of the good speller population was reduced to 29 (14 males and 15 females). Of the 35 poor sp e l l e r s , 4 parents refused permission for the children to participate i n the study, and thus the size of the poor speller population was reduced to 31 (22 males and 9 females). Each student of the good spelling group and the poor spelling group was then tested i n d i v i d u a l l y with the WISC-R standardized test. The c o l l e c t i o n of the data was confined to a three-week period. The WISC-R subtests were then recategorized into Bannatyne's Spatial score 32 (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion subtests); Conceptual score (Vocabulary, S i m i l a r i t i e s , and Comprehension subtests); and Sequential score (Digit Span, Coding, and Arithmetic subtests), along with the usual practice of analyzing WISC Verbal Scale-Performance Scale scores. The results of the subtest scores of the two groups were then compared. Analysis of Data The research method used for this study was the descriptive-comparative method. The basic comparative design involved selecting two groups which d i f f e r on an independent variable ( s p e l l i n g ) , and comparing them on three variables (Spatial, Conceptual, and Sequential scores: WISC-R). A difference between the two groups already existed (good and poor s p e l l e r s ) , and the two groups were not manipulated by the researcher. The WISC-R standardized test was used to obtain-the desired information from the good and the poor spellers i n order to compare them with Bannatyne's theory. The descriptive s t a t i s t i c s determined i n this study were the means and standard deviations. The means and standard deviations of the Spati a l , Conceptual, and Sequential scores are recorded, as well as the Verbal, Performance, and F u l l Scale IQ scores. An i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c , namely the * t 1 test, was used i n this study. An alpha of .05 was chosen because i t i s the most common and popular l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l significance used i n research of t h i s kind. The ' t ' test was considered appropriate because (1) the underlying measure-ment scales for the dependent variables used were considered quasi-i n t e r v a l i n nature, and (2) the underlying assumptions of the ' t ' test were largely met, namely representative selection of subjects, normal d i s -t r i b u t i o n of population scores and equality of the indiv i d u a l group varianc 33 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The recategorized WISC-R scores of good and poor spellers were compared involving a Spatial score, a Conceptual score, and a Sequential score, as suggested by Bannatyne (1974). Hypothesis 1 was supported i n this study. There was no s t a t i s -t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference (°^ = .05) between the mean score (Spatial: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and the mean score of designated good spell e r s . Hypothesis 2 was rejected i n th i s study. There was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference = .01) between the mean score (Conceptual: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and the mean score of designated good spell e r s . Hypothesis 3 was rejected i n this study. There was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference = .001) between the mean score (Sequential: WISC-R) of designated poor spellers and thk mean score of designated good spell e r s . Table 1 represents the mean WISC-R subtest scores of the good and poor spell e r s . The good spellers scored the highest mean i n the Compre-hension subtest, followed by Coding and the Block Design subtests. The poor spellers scored the highest mean i n the Object Assembly subtest, followed by Block Design and Picture Arrangement subtests. The good spellers scored lowest i n the Picture Completion subtest, followed by Information and Picture Arrangement subtests. The poor spe l l e r s , on the other hand, scored lowest i n the Information and D i g i t Span subtests, followed by Arithmetic and Vocabulary subtests. Table 1 Means WISC-R Subtest Scores of Good and Poor Spellers Good Spellers Poor Spellers Verbal Tests Information 9 96 8.16 S i m i l a r i t i e s 10 75 9.32 Arithmetic 10. 58 8.32 Vocabulary 10 65 8.83 Comprehension 12. 44 10.64 Digit Span 10. 68 8.16 Performance Tests Picture Completion 9 06 9.22 Picture Arrangement 10 13 10.77 Block Design 11 89 11.51 Obj ect Assembly 11 55 12.12 Coding 12 00 9.77 35 Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the F u l l Scale, Verbal and Performance IQ, and the recategorized WISC-R scores. Bannatyne's predicted order of "Spatial > Conceptual > Sequential" was manifest for the t o t a l sample, as well as for the poor sp e l l e r s , but not for the good spell e r s . S t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the recategorized WISC-R scores are discussed below, separately for each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of children. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of WISC-R Scores for the Good and Poor Spellers Good Spellers Poor Spellers Total Sample N = 29 N = 31 N = 60 Mean SD : Mean SD Mean SD I.Q. Scores F u l l Scale 104.68^ 9.39^  98.19; 10.59; 101.33 10.62 Verbal 103.19 ; 10.66^ 93.51 11.82; 98.48 12.39 Performance 105.48; ; 12.14: 104.41; 12.66; 104.93 12.42 Recategorized Subtest Scores Spatial 10.83: 2.03: 10.94; 2.21 10.88; 2.11 Conceptual 11.28: ; 2.34 9.61 2.28; 10.44 2.45 Sequential 11.08: l'.73; 8.74; 1.58; 9.91 2.03 Total Sample (N =60) The mean F u l l Scale IQ of the t o t a l sample was 101.33 with a mean Verbal IQ of 98.48 and a mean Performance IQ of 104.93. The mean Spatial score was 10.88, the mean Conceptual score was 10.44, and the mean 36 Sequential score was 9.91, thus manifesting Bannatyne's predicted order of Spatial score i s greater than Conceptual score which, i n turn, i s greater than the Sequential score. Good Spellers (N = 29) The mean F u l l Scale IQ of the good spellers was 104.68 with a mean Verbal IQ of 103.79 and a Performance IQ of 105.48. The mean Spatial score for the good spellers was 10.83, the mean Conceputal score was 11.28 and the mean Sequential score was 11.08. According to th i s research, i t suggests that the good spellers were highest i n the Conceptual score, next highest i n the Sequential score, and lowest i n the Spatial score. However, since the differences are small, this conclusion i s tentative. Poor Spellers (N = 31) The mean F u l l scale IQ of the poor spellers was 98.19 with a mean Verbal IQ of 93.51 and a mean Performance IQ of 104.41. The mean Spatial score for the poor spellers was 10.94, the mean Conceptual score was 9.61, and the mean Sequential score was 8.74, thus manifesting Bannatyne's pre-dicted order of Spatial score i s greater than Conceptual, which, i n turn, i s greater than Sequential. The patterns of the recategorized mean scores for the t o t a l sample, the good spellers and the poor spellers, are graphically depicted i n Figure 1. FIGURE I Mean Recategorized WISC-R Subtest Scores for Total Sample, Good Spellers and Poor Spellers Spatial Conceptual Sequential Categories 38 Analysis of Means A ' t ' test showed that there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the good and the poor spellers i n the Spatial scores (Table 3). The ' t ' test also showed that there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two groups i n the Conceputal score at the .01 l e v e l . There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the .001 l e v e l between the two sp e l l i n g groups i n the Sequential category. A ' t ' test also showed that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the .05 l e v e l between the two spelling groups i n the mean F u l l Scale IQ, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the .001 l e v e l i n the mean Verbal IQ, but no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the good and the poor spellers i n the mean Performance IQ. Table 3 Means and ' t ' test when Comparing Good and Poor Spellers on WISC-R Scores Good Spellers Poor Spellers ' t ' test N = 29 N = 31 Value Mean Mean IQ Scores F u l l Scale 104.68 98.19 2.46* Verbal 103.79 93.51 3.46*** Performance 105.48 104.41 0.35 Recategorized Subtest Scores Spatial 10.83 10.94 -0.20 Conceptual 11.28 9.61 2.75** Sequential 11.08 8.74 5.37*** *p<-05 **p < . 01 ***p«C001 39 Rank Frequency Analysis of Recategorized Scores The recategorized Sp a t i a l , Conceptual and Sequential scores for each c h i l d were ranked from highest to lowest i n order to determine the r e l a t i v e frequency that each of these scores was highest, lowest, and intermediate for the 60 subjects. The analysis revealed that 50% of the children scored highest i n the Spatial category, 28% scored highest i n the Conceptual category, and 22% scored highest i n the Sequential cate-gory. Spatial category ranked second for 23% of the children, while the Conceptual score ranked second for 47% of the children; and the Sequen-t i a l score ranked second for 30% of the children. Twenty-seven percent of the children scored lowest i n the Spatial category, while 25% scored lowest i n the Conceptual category, and 48% of the children scored lowest i n the Sequential category. Altogether, only 32% of the children ob-tained a pattern of recategorized scores of the Spatial i s greater than Conceptual which, i n turn i s greater than the Sequential score. The r e l a t i v e frequency also revealed the rank frequency of both good and poof spellers. The analysis revealed that 34% of the good spellers scored highest i n the Spatial category, 34% scored highest i n the Conceptual category, and 31% scored highest i n the Sequential cate-gory. Spatial category ranked second for 21% of the good s p e l l e r s , while the Conceptual score ranked second for 45% of the good sp e l l e r s , and the Sequential score ranked second for 34% of the good spell e r s . Forty-five percent of the good spellers scored lowest i n the Spatial category, while 21% scored lowest i n the Conceptual category, and 34% of the good spellers scored lowest i n the Sequential category. Altogether, 21% of the good spellers obtained a pattern of recategorized scores of 40 Spatial category i s greater than Conceptual which, i n turn, i s greater than the Sequential category. The analysis revealed that 65% of the poor spellers scored high-est i n the Spatial category, 23% scored highest i n the Conceptual cate-gory, and 13% scored highest i n the Sequential category. Spatial cate-gory ranked second for 26% of the poor spellers, while the Conceptual score ranked second for 48% of the poor sp e l l e r s , and the Sequential score ranked second for 26% of the poor spell e r s . Ten percent of the poor spellers scored lowest i n the Spatial category, while 29% scored low-est i n the Conceptual category, and 61% of the poor spellers scored low-est i n the Sequential category. Altogether, 48% of the poor spellers obtained a pattern of recategorized scores of Spatial greater than Con-ceptual which, i n turn, i s greater than the Sequential score. 41 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS The results suggest that poor spellers are characterized by the same pattern of a b i l i t i e s that Bannatyne (1968, 1971) found for children with genetic dyslexic and that Rugel (1974) reported for disabled readers i n general. Thus, the study provides further support for the view that children with academic and learning d i s a b i l i t i e s are characterized by a unique pattern of WISC and WISC-R subtest scaled scores. Poor spellers i n t h i s study also manifest the same pattern as learning disabled c h i l d -ren do i n the study by Naidoo (1972) or that of Nelson and Warrington (1974). Though we are not, of course, e n t i t l e d to assume that poor spel-l e r s , as they have been operationally defined i n t h i s study, f i t any but the most general d e f i n i t i o n s of learning d i s a b i l i t y , (e.g. Kirk, 1962). Moreover, rank frequency analyses of recategorized scores revealed that the Spatial score was highest for 50% of the children and lowest for 27%. The Conceptual score was highest for 28% of the c h i l d -ren and lowest for 25%. Whereas the Sequential score was highest for 22% of the children and lowest for 48%. Conclusions The present findings, along with Naidoo (1972), Nelson and Warrington (1974), Rugel (1974), Smith, Coleman, Dokecki and Davis (1977) appear to support Bannatyne's (1974) recategorization "as a p r a c t i c a l diagnostic tool which reorganizes the subtest scores into a more useful and s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d format than Wechsler's own grouping of Verbal and Performance." I t i s important to r e a l i z e that the results of the present i n -vestigation with poor spellers show some s i g n i f i c a n t differences from 42 those reported by Bannatyne (1968, 1971) with dyslexic children. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the poor spellers have done better than the good spellers i n the Spatial categories (Block Design, Object Assembly and Picture Completion). The good spellers, however, have shown very s i g n i f i c a n t results beyond Bannatyne's prediction. The good spellers did best i n the Con-ceptual categories, second best i n the Sequential category, and lowest i n the Spatial category. I t i s , of course, impossible to draw s p e c i f i c conclusions from these differences, since the two studies were concerned with populations selected according to quite different c r i t e r i a . However, i t seems appro-priate to conclude, along with Wallbrown, et a l , (1980) that at best recategorized scores, or other forms of subtest analysis, provide only one of many pieces of information that may be useful to the diagnostican or remedial teacher. What does the low Sequential recategorized score signify? Bannatyne (1971) suggested that i t could represent a d e f i c i t i n auditory closure and sequencing. This auditory Sequential memory d e f i c i t pur-portedly i s c r u c i a l to the reading and sp e l l i n g process. Rugel (1974) suggested that the low Sequential memory d e f i c i t , or an attentional d i s a b i l i t y was inferred. This ambiguity should be addressed by i n v e s t i -gators i n subsequent research. While the poor spellers i n this study were characterized by a pattern of high Spatial scores and spel l i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s , other patterns are l i k e l y to be linked to additional academic deficiencies. I t i s hoped that continued resesrch with the WISC-R, paired with other cognitive and perceptual instruments, w i l l lead to a more refined procedure for i d e n t i -43 fying poor spellers, a more accurately differentiated subdiagnosis, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l underlying processes, and more effec t i v e intervention strategies. Suggestions The f i n a l step i n assessing the potential usefulness of patterns of recategorized scores w i l l e n t a i l more work, inevi t a b l y , of a l o n g i -tudinal nature. I t may be possible to predict the development of severe deficiencies. I f an accurate prediction of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to development of various academic deficiencies can be derived, the e f f o r t required for the necessary research would be small compared to the immense advantage provided by this information. In t his study, and i n those by Naidoo (1972), and Nelson and Warrington (1974), the poor spellers were characterized by r e l a t i v e l y elevated Spatial scores, and by r e l a t i v e l y depressed Sequential scores. The question remains, however, does a pattern of elevated Spatial and r e l a t i v e l y depressed Sequential scores predict severe reading and/or spelling d i s a b i l i t y , o v e r a l l average IQ notwithstanding? I f a l l children entering f i r s t grade i n a given school system were administered the WISC-R would the information permit above-random accuracy i n predicting subsequent spel l i n g (or other) d i s a b i l i t y ? The crux of the potential u t i l i z a t i o n of recategorized scores i n t h i s manner i s that the e a r l i e r a tendency for development of severe academic deficiencies i s i d e n t i f i e d , the e a r l i e r preventive and/or remedial work may begin. 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Anderson, P. S., and Groff, P. J. Resource Materials for Teaching of  Spelling. Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co., 1968. Bannatyne, A. Language, Reading, and Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . Spring-f i e l d , 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1971. Caldwell, M. B. An Analysis of Responses of a Southern Urban Negro Population to Items on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Unpublished doctoral dis s e r t a t i o n . Pennsylvania State University, 1954. Cla n f i e l d , M. and Hannan, C. Teaching Spelling by A l l Means. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Pearson Publishers, Lear Siegler, Inc., 1961. Dolch, E. W. Better Spelling. Champaign, 111.: The Garrard Press, 1960. Fitzgerald, J . A. Teaching of Spelling. Milwaukee, Wish.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1951. Gay, L. R. Educational Research - Competencies for Analysis and Application. Columbia, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, 1976. Glasser, A. J . , and Zimmerman, I. L. C l i n i c a l Interpretation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1976. Hanna, P. R., Hodges, R. E., and Hanna, J. S. Spelling: Structure and  Strategies. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1971. Hildreth, G. Teaching Spelling - A Guide to Basic Pr i n c i p l e s and  Practices. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1955. Horn, E. Teaching Spelling - What Research Says to the Teacher. Wash., D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1954. Jacobson, S., and Ferinden, W. Educational Interpretation of the Wechsler  Intelligence Scale for Children. Linden, N.J.: Remediation Association, 1969. Johnson, D. J. and Myklebust, H. R. Dyslexia i n childhood, i n Jerome Hellmuth (ed.) Learning Disorders, Vol. 1. .Seattle, Wash.: Special Child Publishers, 1965. Johnson, D. J. and Myklebust, H. R. Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s : Educational  Prin c i p l e s arid Practices. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1967. 45 Kirk, S. A. Educating Exceptional Children. (Second Edition). Boston, Mass.: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1962. Kuska, A., Webster, E. J. D., Elford, G. Spelling i n Language Arts - Grade Six. Toronto: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964. Lutz, J . Expanding Spelling S k i l l s . Dansville, N.Y.: F. A. Owen Publishing Company, 1963. McLean, T. K. A comparison of the subtest performance of two groups of retarded readers with l i k e groups of non-retarded readers on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Doctoral disse r t a t i o n . University of Oregon, 1963. Naidoo, S. Specific Dyslexia. The Research Report of the ICAA Word Blind Center for Dyslexic Children. Great B r i t a i n : Pitman Press, 1972. Nelson, H. E., and Warrington, E. K. The Neuropsychology of Learning Disorders: Theoretical Approach. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976. Personke, C, and Yee, A. H. Comprehensive Spelling Instruction: Theory  Research arid Application. Scranton, Penn.: Intext Educational Publishers, 1971. Peters, M. L. Success i n Spelling. Cambridge: Cambridge Ins t i t u t e of Education, 1970. Satt l e r , J. M. Assessment of Children's Intelligence. (Revised Reprint). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1974. Schiffman, G., and Clemmens, R. L. Observations on children with severe reading problems, i n Jerome Hellmuth (ed.), Learning Disorders, Vol. 2. Seattle, Wash: Special Child Pub., 1966. Schonell, F. J. Essentials i n Teaching arid Testing Spelling. New York: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1955. Thomas, V. Teaching Spelling. Canadian Word L i s t s & Instructional Techniques. Gage Educational Publishing, Ltd., 1974. Wechsler, D. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. (Revised). New York: Psychological Corp., 1974. Winer, B. J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimerital Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. B. PERIODICALS Ackerman, P. T., Peters, J. E., and Dykman, R. A. Children with s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1971, 4(3), 33-49. 46 Altus, G. T. A WISC p r o f i l e for retarded readers, Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1956, 20-, 155-156. Bannatyne, A. Diagnosing learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and writing remedial prescriptions, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, 3^ , 242-249. Relationships between written s p e l l i n g , motor-functioning and sequencing s k i l l s , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1969, 1, 6-18. Diagnosis: a note on recategorization of the WISC scaled scores, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1974, _7, 272-273. Barratt, E. S., and Baumgarten, D. L. The relationship of the WISC and Stanford-Binet to school achievement, Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 1957, 21, 144. Boyer, H. K. Why you can't spell? Science Digest, 37, 83-86, January, 1955. Burks, H. F., and Bruce, P. The characteristics of poor and good readers as disclosed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1955, 46, 488-493. Bush, W. J. and Bruce, D. M. WISC test patterns and underachievers, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1973, j6, 14, 251-256. Coleman, J. C. and Rasof, B. I n t e l l e c t u a l factors i n learning disorders, Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1963, 16, 139-152. Gehman, I. H., and Matyas, R. P. S t a b i l i t y of the WISC and Binet tests, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1956, 20, 150-152. Graham, E. E. Wechsler-Bellevue and WISC scattergrams of unsuccessful readers, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, 16^, 268-271. H i r s t , L. C. The usefulness of a two-way analysis of WISC subtests i n the diagnosis of remedial reading problems, Journal of Experimental  Education, 1960, 29, 155-156. Hunter, E. J. and Johnson, L. D. Developmental and psychological d i f -ferences between readers and non-readers, Journal of Learning  D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1971, 4(10), 572-574. Jones, S. The Wechsler inte l l i g e n c e scale for children applied to a sample of London primary school children, B r i t i s h Journal of  Educational Psychology, 1962, 32, 119-132. Keogh, B. K., Wetter, J . , McGinty, A., Donlon, G. Functional analysis of WISC performance of learning disordered hyperactive and mentally retarded boys, Psychology i n the Schools, 1973, 10(2), 178-181. Lyle, J. G., and Goyen, J . Performance of retarded readers on the WISC and education tests, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74(1) 105-112. 47 Maxwell, A. E. A factor analysis of the WISC, B r i t i s h Journal of  Educational Psychology, 1959, 29_, 237-241. M i l l e r , M. On the attempt to find WISC-R p r o f i l e s for learning and reading d i s a b i l i t i e s , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1980, 13(6), 338-340. M i l l e r , M., Stoneburner, R. L., Brecht, R. D. WISC subtest patterns as disciminators of perceptual d i s a b i l i t y , Journal of Learning  D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1978, 11(7), 449-452. McLeod, J. A comparison of WISC subtest scores of pre-adolescent success-f u l and unsuccessful readers, A u s t r a l i a Journal of Psychology, 1965, 17, 220-228. Nelson, H. E. and Warrington, E. K. Developmental spelling.-.retardation and i t s r e l a t i o n to other cognitive a b i l i t i e s , B r i t i s h Journal  of Psychology, 1974, 65, 2, 265-274. Ne v i l l e , D. A comparison of the WISC patterns of male retarded and non-retarded readers, Journal of Educational Research, 1961, 5_4, 195-197. 195-197. Rice, D. B. Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : an investigation i n two parts, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1970, 3(3), 149-155. Rourke, B, P., Di e t r i c h , D. M., Young, G. C. Significance of WISC verbal-performance discrepancies for young children with learning d i s -a b i l i t i e s , Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1973, 36, 275-282. Rugel, R. P. WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: a review with respect to Bannatyne's recategorization, Journal of Learning  D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1974, ]_, 57-64. Smith, M. D., Coleman, J. M. Dokecki, P. R., and Davis, E. E. 1 ' " • I n t e l l e c t u a l characteristics of school-labelled learning disabled children, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1977, 43, '352-357. • • Recategorized WISC-R subtest scores of school-verified learn-ing disabled children, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1977, 10, 437-443. Smith, M. D. S t a b i l i t y of WISC-R subtest p r o f i l e s ofr learning disabled children, Psychology i n the School, 1978, L5, 4-7. Stevenson, L. P. WISC-R analysis: implications for diagnosis and i n t e r -vention, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1980, 13(6), 346-349. Wallbrown, F., Blaha, J . , Vance, H. Developing remedial hypotheses from a b i l i t y p r o f i l e s , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1979,12,557-561. Wallbrown, F., Blaha, J . , Vance, B. A reply to M i l l e r ' s concerns about WISC-R p r o f i l e analysis, Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1980, 13(6), 340-345. - 48 - APPENDIX A THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2075 WESBROOK MALL VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY OF EDUCATION Scarfe Annex. February 22, 1980. Dear Teacher: I t would be greatly appreciated i f you would administer the attached Spelling Test to your class as discussed with you when I v i s i t e d your school. To ensure uniformity of administration, please follow the procedure as stated: 1. Speak the word. 2. Use the word i n a sentence. 3. Repeat the word. Thank you for your kind assistance with t h i s matter. Once the results have been analyzed, some of the children w i l l be tested further, i n d i v i d u a l l y . Yours sincerely, Stanley A. Perkins, Ed.D Professor of Education. SAP/gw C e c i l i a Keung - 49 - APPENDIX B 50-WORD SPELLING TEST To ensure uniformity of administration, please follow the procedure as follows: 1. Speak the word, 2. Use the word i n a sentence, 3. Repeat the word. 1. glory 26. towel 2. Negro 27. s t i f f 3. width 28. hotel 4. haul 29. potato 5. breath 30. special 6. r i d i n g 31. grammar 7. pillow 32. exchange 8. accept 33. climbing 9. cousins 34. backwards 10. d i f f i c u l t 35. image 11. exercise 36. careless 12. treatment 37. unexpected 13. habit 38. pioneer 14. l i m i t 39. amount 15. hedge 40. generally 16. guard 41. guest 17. defeat 42. pleasant 18. polish 43. control 19. centre 44. battery 20. carols 45. worried 21. pumpkin 46. decorations 22. hurried 47. numerous 23. pavement 48. beginning 24. companies 49. strength 25. baggage 50. magazine - 50 -LETTER FOR PERMISSION FROM TEACHERS TO PARENTS APPENDIX C Dear Parents: As a parent of a grade si x student i n the Surrey School D i s t r i c t , your kind permission i s being sought for your son or daughter to participate i n a research study on spel l i n g and ways of learning. The researcher i s interested i n determining how a student's learning a b i l i t y i n spelling relates to different learning strengths of each individual by testing the students, i n d i v i d u a l l y . This study i s being conducted by C e c i l i a Keung for com-pletion of her Master of Arts Degree i n Education under the dir e c t i o n of Dr. S. Perkins, Professor of Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, and with the permission of Mr. J. Evans, Superintendent of School D i s t r i c t #36, Surrey. Your permission for your son or daughter to participate i n th i s study i s greatly appreciated, and i s completely voluntary. Please sign and return the form below, i f you are w i l l i n g to have your son or daughter participate i n the study. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely yours, P r i n c i p a l . PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Name of Classroom Teacher I hereby give permission for my c h i l d , to participate i n this research study on spelling and learning strategies. DATE: PARENT'S SIGNATURE 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054351/manifest

Comment

Related Items