VISUAL-SPATIAL PROCESSING AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT: THE PREDICTIVE ABILITY OF THE VISUAL-SPATIAL MEASURES OF THE STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALES,

FIFTH EDITION AND THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN- FOURTH EDITION

By Eldon Clifford B.S.Ed. Black Hills State University, 1997 M.S. South Dakota State University, 2000

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Division of Counseling and Psychology in Education School Psychology Program In the Graduate School The University of South Dakota December 13, 2008

UMI Number: 3351188 Copyright 2008 by Clifford, Eldon

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3351188 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Copyright by ELDON CLIFFORD 2008 All Rights Reserved

Members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of Eldon Clifford find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

ale Pietrzak, Ed.D. Committee Chair

JL

Bruce Proctor, Ph.D. Co-Committee Chair

rbara Yutrzenka, Ph.D.

Eldon Clifford (Ph. D., The University of South Dakota, 2008) Dissertation Directed By Dr. Dale Pietrzak Visual-Spatial Processing and Mathematics Achievement: The Predictive Ability of the Visual-Spatial Measures of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition In the law and the literature there has been a disconnect between the definition of a learning disability and how it is operationalized. For the past 30 years, the primary method of learning disability identification has been a severe discrepancy between an individual's cognitive ability level and his/her academic achievement. The recent 2004 IDEA amendments have included language that allows for changes in identification procedures. This language suggests a specific learning disability may be identified by a student's failure to respond to a research based intervention (RTI). However, both identification methods fail to identify a learning disability based on the IDEA 2004 definition, which defines a specific learning disability primarily as a disorder in psychological processing. Research suggests that processing components play a critical role in academic tasks such as reading, writing and mathematics. Furthermore, there has been considerable research that suggests visual-spatial processing is related to mathematics achievement. The two most well known IQ tests, the Stanford-Binet-Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISCIV), were revised in 2003 to align more closely with the most current theory of intelligence, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities (CHC). Research supports both instruments have subtests that measure visual-spatial processing. The purpose of the current study is to identify which visual-spatial processing measure (SB5 or WISC-IV) is the better predictor of poor mathematics achievement. The participants were 112 6th- 8th grade middle school students. Of the 112 original participants, 109 were included in the study. The comparison of the results of two separate sequential logistic regressions found that both measures could significantly predict mathematics achievement. However, given the relatively small amount of variance accounted for by both the SB5 and WISC-IV visual-spatial processing measures, the results had questionable practical significance.

This abstract of approximately 291 words is approved as to form and content and I
approve its publication.

Bu5atesPietrzak, Dissertation Committee Chair

IV

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee Dr. Dale Pietrzak, Dr. Bruce Proctor, Dr. Amy Schweinle and Dr. Barbara Yutrzenka for their time in this endeavor. I would specifically like to thank the committee chair Dr. Pietrzak for his guidance and stepping in to take on that role when my previous chair left the university. In addition, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Schweinle for her statistical expertise and taking the time to read a number of drafts and offer feedback when she was under no obligation to do so. I would also like to express gratitude to former University of South Dakota School Psychology professor Dr. Jordan Mulder for helping me with the conceptualization of my dissertation and his direction and constructive comments during the proposal stage. Finally, I would like to thank the School Psychology Department at the University of South Dakota for providing me with a career that has afforded me much, personally and professionally. I would like to express my appreciation for my sister Dr. Jessteene Clifford-Kelly. I am grateful to her for taking the time to read a number of early drafts and providing me feedback. In addition, I would like to thank her for her encouragement and her commiserating ear as she similarly went through this sometimes convoluted graduate education process. I would like to thank my parents Dewayne and Kathy Clifford for their gentle yet persistent encouragement. Without the strong foundation they built, I would have not been able to complete this undertaking. I would also like to Ms. Jami Johnson for her feedback on a number of drafts as well as her encouragement and support.

Table of Contents

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Title Page Copy Right Page Signature Page Abstract Acknowledgments _ List of Tables and Figures _ Chapter 1/Introduction..__ a. Introduction b. Significance of the Study. c. Statement of the Problem d. Definition of Terms _ e. Limitations _ f. Structure of the Proceeding Chapters

_ . _ _

p. iii p. vi ..p. v ...p. viii p. 1 p. 1 p. 17 p. 19 p. 19 .....p. 20 p. 21 p. 22 p. 22 p. 22 p. 22 p. 26 p. 28 p. 31 p. 32 p. 32 p. 35 .p. 42 p. 45 p. 46 p. 47 p. 49 p. 61 p. 62 p. 63 p. 64 p. 67 p. 73 p. 73 p. 76

8. Chapter 2/ Literature Review _ a. Literature Review b. Learning Disabilities..... i. Learning Disabilities Defined: Past and Present ii. Learning Disabilities Classification and Identification iii. Models of Identification: IQ-Achievement Discrepancy and Response to Intervention iv. Summary c. Psychological Processing and Learning Disabilities i. Reading ii. Writing iii. Mathematics... iv. Summary. d. Mathematical Disabilities i. Mathematical Disabilities: Definition and Identification ii. Specific Mathematical tasks and their Cognitive Processes iii. Subtypes of Mathematical Disabilities iv. Summary e. Visual Spatial Processing and Mathematics i. Visual-Spatial Processing's relationship to Mathematics ii. Visual-Spatial Processing iii. Summary. f. Modern Intelligence Theory and Assessing VisualSpatial Processing _ _ _ _ _ i. CHC Theory
vi

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, Fifth Edition iii. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition _ _ _ _ _ _ iv. Summary g. Summary _ _ _

ii.

p. 82 _p. 87 _p. 92 __p. 93

3. Chapter 3/ Methodology. __p. 96 a. Methodology. _ _ p. 96 b. Participants _ _ _ _ p. 97 c. Instruments _ p. 100 i. Intelligence Measure _ p. 100 ii. Visual-Spatial Measures ...p. 101 iii. Measure of Mathematics Achievement p. I l l d. Procedures.. .p. 117 e. Data Analysis.. p. 119 f. Summary _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._p. 122 4. Chapter 4/ Results ...p. 123 a. Preliminary Analysis p. 123 b. Correlation Analysis p. 125 c. Multiple Regression Analysis p. 126 d. Logistic Regression Analysis ___p. 129 i. SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing __...p. 131 ii. WISC-IV Visual Spatial Processing p. 132 e. Comparison of the SB5 and WISC-IV p. 134 f. Summary. _ p. 136 5. Chapter 5/ Discussion _ _ p. 138 a. Visual-Spatial Processing's Relationship to Mathematics p. 138 b. Predictive Ability of the SB5 and WISC-IV p. 140 c. Comparison of the SB5 and WISC-IV. p. 143 d. Further Implications _ p. 146 e. Limitations. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p. 149 f. Future Research p. 150 g. Importance of the Study p. 151 6. Appendices _ p. 152 a. Institutional Review Board Approval p. 152 b. Approval Letters From Participating Schools _ p. 154 c. Demographic Form p. 165 6. References _ _ _ p. 166

vn

List of Tables and Figures

1. Chapter 1 a. Tables: i. Table 1.1: The 10 Cattell-Horn-Carroll(CHC) Broad Factors of Intelligence and their Abbreviations p. 8 ii. Table 1.2: The 12 CHC Visual Processing (GV) Narrow Cognitive Abilities and their Abbreviations p. 9 iii. Table 1.3: The Visual-Spatial Process Measures of the WISC-IV p. 16 b. Figures: i. Figure 1.1: The Structure of the SB5 _ p. 11 ii. Figure 1.2: The Visual-Spatial Processing Measures of the SB5 p. 14 iii. Figure 1.3: The Structure of the WISC-IV p. 15 2. Chapter 2 a. Tables: i. Table 2.1: Tasks Used to Measure Visual-Spatial Processing in Current Literature ii. Table 2.2: Subtests and Domain Construction of the SB5 Full Scale IQ iii. Table 2.3: Index and Subtests of the WISC-IV that Combine to Form the Full Scale IQ b. Figures: i. Figure 2.1: CHC Broad and Narrow Cognitive Abilities _ _ _ 3. Chapter 3 a. Tables: i. Table 3.1: Participants' grade levels ii. Table 3.2: Demographics _ iii. Table 3.3: Language Spoken at Home iv. Table 3.4: Level of Parental Education _ _ 4. Chapter 4 a. Tables: i. Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics _ ii. Table 4.2: Correlation Analysis iii. Table 4.3: R2 Change and Change Statistics iv. Table 4.4: Coefficients and Significance Tests for the Reduced and Full Model v. Table 4.5: SB5 Model Statistics vi. Table 4.6: SB5 Model Parameters _ _ vii. Table 4.7: WISC-IV Model Statistics _ _ viii. Table 4.8: WISC-IV Model Parameters vni

p . 74 .p. 82 p. 88

p. 75

p. 97 p. 98 p. 98 p. 98

_ _ _ _ _

p. 125 __p. 126 p. 129 132 134 134 136 136

_ _

p. _ _ p. p. p. p.

ix. Table 4.9: SB5 & WISC-IV Comparison of Models p. 139 x. Table 4.10: Model Parameters of Both the SB5 and WISC-IV p. 139

ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The definition of a specific learning disability (SLD) has changed little from Samuel Kirk's conceptualization in 1962-1963. Kirk defined a SLD as an underdeveloped processing disorder in the areas of speech, language, reading, spelling, writing or mathematics (Hammill, 1990; Kirk & Kirk, 1983). Public Law 94-142, adopted in 1975, also maintained that a SLD was based on a disorder in psychological processing. Similarly, the subsequent revisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990 and 1997 defined a SLD as a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003; Reschly, Hosp & Schmied, 2003). The current Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) continued this trend: (i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 46757) In a previous review of all 50 state department of education rules, over 80% of states have adopted this definition of a SLD (Reschly, Hosp & Schmied, 2003). In addition, 96% of state education departments believe that a SLD is a processing disorder (Reschly, et al. 2003). Furthermore, a recent unpublished review of how states currently define a SLD, found that 49 of the 51 states (including the District of Columbia) use the 1

federal definition of a SLD or use the term "processing disorder" in their definition (Clifford, 2008). However, the main disagreement in special education is not in the definition, but in the identification of a SLD (Kavale, Holdnack & Mostert 2005). There is a disparity in the law and the literature between the definition of a learning disability and how it is operationalized. For the past 30 years, the primary method of SLD identification has been a severe discrepancy between an individual's ability level and their achievement (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003). However, the recent 2004 IDEA amendments have included language that allows for changes in identification procedures to a procedure based on a student's failure to respond to an intervention (RTI). In addition, a recent unpublished review of state special education rules (adopted or in the processes of adoption) found that states are moving away from using a discrepancy only identification procedure for a SLD (Clifford, 2008). According to IDEA 2004 the identification of a SLD: Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10); Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention; and May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10) (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b). Interestingly, both methods (discrepancy and response to an intervention) of learning disability identification fail to address the definition, which states a SLD is "a

disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes..." (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 46757). If the definition of a SLD is based on the assumption it is a psychological processing disorder, then it is appropriate that the identification of a SLD include elements of a psychological processing disorder evaluation (Torgesen, 2002). Understanding this idea requires a clear conceptualization of what is meant by psychological processing. Psychological processes are the cognitive abilities that allow the use of language, attention, memory, complex problem solving, higher order thinking and perception in academic and non-academic tasks (Gerring, & Zimbardo, 2002). The literature suggests there are specific processing components in the three major academic tasks of reading, writing and mathematics. Research maintains reading requires the psychological processes of phonological processing, syntactic processing, working memory, semantic processing, and orthographic processing (Badian, 2001; Gray & McCutchen, 2006; Holsgrove & Garton, 2006; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Nation & Snowing, 1998; Siegel, 2003). The literature supports that writing involves phonological processing, orthographic processing, working memory, long-term memory, short-term memory, and morphological processing (Berninger, Abbot, Thomson, & Raskind, 2001; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Kellogg, 2001b, Swanson & Berninger, 1996). Studies have found mathematical thinking incorporates working memory, phonological processing, attention, long-term memory, and the PASS (planning; attention; successive; simultaneous) cognitive processes (Fuchs et al, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2006; Kroesberger, Van Luit and Naglieri, 2003; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson &

Jerman, 2006). Recent literature suggests of the three academic areas, mathematics has the most need for additional research (Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Failing to gain proficiency in mathematics while in elementary and middle school will negatively influence a student's future, both academically and occupationally (Assel, Landry, Swank, Smith & Steelman, 2003; Griffin, 2003). It is estimated that 4-8% of public school students have a disability in the area of mathematics (Fleischner, & Manhemier, 1997; Fuchs et al., 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003; Geary 2004; Geary & Hoard 2003; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). According to IDEA (2004) students who have a mathematics disability (MD) have a psychological processing disorder in utilizing written or spoken language that has resulted in a less than adequate ability to do mathematical calculations (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). Recent literature suggests that understanding the cognitive aspects of mathematical thinking may increase the ability of professionals to identify and treat students that struggle with mathematics (Fuchs et. al., 2006). Furthermore, the literature supports there are specific psychological processes in the areas of mathematical calculation, mathematical fluency, and mathematical word problems. Research suggests that attention, working memory, short-term memory, long-term (semantic) memory, and phonological processing are involved in mathematical calculation and fluency tasks (Floyd, Evans, McGrew, 2003; Fuchs et al., 2006; Fuchs et al., 2005: Swanson, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). Additionally, studies have shown that mathematical word problems require the psychological processes of attention, working memory, short-term memory, and phonological processing (Fuchs et al., 2005; Swanson, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson, Jerman, &

Zheng, 2008). The literature also supports, through understanding the processing components of mathematical thinking, subtypes of MD can be identified (Cornoldi, Venneri, Marconato, Molin & Montinari, 2003; Geary, 2004; Jordan 1995). David Geary has contributed much to this area of research. Swanson & Jerman (2006) stated, "Although not a quantitative analysis, one of the most comprehensive syntheses of the cognitive literature on MD was conducted by Geary" (p. 249). Geary (1993; 1996; 2004) suggests there are three separate subtypes of MD: 1) Procedural; 2) Semantic; 3) Visualspatial. Additional literature has also supported a visual-spatial processing deficit as a subtype of MD (Jordan, 1995; Cornoldi et al., 2003; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Several studies suggest visual-spatial processing is indeed related to mathematical thinking (Ansari et al, 2003; Assel et al., 2003; Busse, Berninger, Smith & Hildebrand, 2001; Cornoldi et al., 2003; Geary, 1993; Geary & Hoard, 2003; Hartje, 1987; Mazzocco, 2005; Reuhkala, 2001). A student who has a visual-processing disorder will have difficulty conceptualizing mathematical problems that are spatially based (Geary, 2004). Visual-spatial processing is involved in the mathematical skills of cardinality, estimation, solving word problems and number alignment (Assel, et al, 2003; Augustyniak, Murphy, & Phillip, 2005; Jordan, et al, 2003). Other, studies have also shown a relationship between MD and deficits in visual-spatial processing (Busse et al., 2003; Harnadeck & Rourke, 1994; McGlaughlin et al., 2005; Reuhkala, 2001). A recent meta-analysis of MD research has confirmed this relationship (Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Fully understanding this relationship requires an understanding of visual-spatial processing. Visual-spatial processing is defined as "The ability to generate, retain, retrieve and transform well-structured visual images" (Lohman, 1994, p. 1000). Perhaps, the most

comprehensive view of where visual-spatial material is processed may come from the work of Alan Baddeley (Fisk & Sharp, 2003; Geary, 2004; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004; Reuhkala, 2001; Sholl & Fraone, 2004; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & BeebeFrankenberger, 2004). Visual-spatial processing is one aspect of working memory (WM). WM is the ability to take-in information and mentally manipulate that information while simultaneously retaining it (Geary, 2004). Baddeley's (1996) theory separates WM into four parts: 1) Central executive; 2) Episodic buffer; 3) Phonological loop; 4) Visualspatial sketchpad. The central executive is viewed as the controller for the remaining three elements (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The episodic buffer is responsible for integrating WM and long-term memory (Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The phonological loop is the part of WM that holds information of a verbal nature (Baddeley, 1996). The visual-spatial sketchpad is utilized in such tasks as anticipating spatial transformations, mental rearrangement of items and visualizing the relationship of parts to a whole (Sholl & Fraone, 2004). The visual-spatial sketchpad processes visualspatial information (Reuhkala, 2001; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The visual-spatial sketchpad is responsible for processing information that is both visual and spatial in nature (Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The visual-spatial sketchpad is of limited duration and serves as a storage and processing center (Baddeley, 1996). Visual material and spatial material are processed separately; however, when visual and spatial information is utilized it is done as a gestalt (Baddeley, 1996; Richardson & Vecchi, 2002; Sholl & Fraone, 2004). Neuropsychologists believe the visual-spatial material is mainly processed in the right hemisphere of the brain in the parietal cortex (spatial) and the inferotemproal areas (visual) (Cornoldi, Venneri, Marconato, Molin &

Montinari 2003; Geary, 1993; Harnadeck & Rourke, 1994; Morris & Parslow, 2004; Young & Ratcliff, 1983). Fully comprehending visual-spatial processing also requires an understanding of how it is assessed. McGrew (2005) posits tasks that are believed to measure visual-spatial possessing involve figural or geometric structures that necessitate the visual perception and mental manipulation of "visual shapes, forms, or images, and/or tasks that require or maintain spatial orientation with regard to objects that may change or move through space" (McGrew, 2005 p. 152). To understand how visual-spatial processing is assessed it is important to conceptualize it in the context of the most current theory of intelligence. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence has had a significant impact on the construction and interpretation of current measures of intelligence (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwan, 2005). The CHC theory of intelligence has a three tiered structure that consists of a general factor of intelligence or "g", 10 broad factors of intelligence, and approximately 70 narrow factors of intelligence (Evans, Floyd, McGrew, & Leforgee 2002; McGrew, 2005; Sattler, 2001). The 10 broad factors include: 1) Fluid Intelligence (Gf); 2) Crystallized Intelligence (Gc); 3) Short-Term Memory (Gsm); 4) Visual Processing (Gv); 5) Auditory Processing (Ga); 6) Long-term Retrieval (Glr); 7) Processing Speed (Gs); 8) Reading and Writing (Grw); 9) Quantitative Knowledge (Gq); 10) Decision/Reaction Time (Gt) (see table 1.1) (Evans et al, 2002; Keith, et al. 2006; Roid, 2003a; Roid, 2003b; McGrew, 2005). The literature overwhelmingly views the terms Visual-Spatial Processing and Visual Processing (Gv) as the same construct (Alfanso et al., 2005; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Evans et al., 2002; Floyd, et al.

2003; McGrew, 2005; Osmon, Smerz, Braun, & Plambeck, 2006; Proctor et al., 2005; Roid, 2003a). Table 1.1 The 10 Cattell-Horn-Carroll Broad Factors of Intelligence and their Abbreviations Factor Abbreviation 1. Fluid Intelligence (Gf) 2. Crystallized Intelligence 3. Short-Term Memory 4. Visual Processing 5. Auditory Processing 6. Long-term Retrieval 7. Processing Speed 8. Reading and Writing 9. Quantitative Knowledge 10. Decision/Reaction Time (Gc) (Gsm) (Gv) (Ga) (Glr) (Gs) (Grw) (Gq) (Gf)

The Gv broad category of intelligence incorporates several processing tasks including the production of visual images, mentally holding and manipulating visual images and recalling visual images (McGrew, 2005). The Gv broad category of intelligence includes the narrow cognitive abilities of: 1 ) Visualization (VZ); 2) Spatial relations (SR); 3) Closure speed (CS); 4) Closure flexibility (CF); 5) Visual memory (MV); 6) Spatial scanning (SS); 7) Serial perception integration (PI); 8) Length estimation (LE); 9) Perceptual illusions (IL); 10) Perceptual alterations (PN); 11) Imagery (IM); 12) Perceptual Speed (PS) (see table 1.2) (Carroll. 1993; Lohman, 1994; McGrew, 2005; Sattler, 2001). Carroll's (1993) factor analytical work with cognitive abilities may provide the best understanding of how Gv (i.e. visual-spatial processing) is assessed.

Table 1.2 The 12 CHC Visual Processing (Gv) Narrow Cognitive Abilities and their Abbreviations Narrow Ability Abbreviation 1. Visualization (VZ) 2. Spatial Relations 3. Closure Speed 4. Flexibility of Closure 5. Visual Memory 6. Spatial Scanning 7. Serial Perception Integration 8. Length Estimation 9. Perceptual Illusions 10. Perceptual Alterations 11. Imagery 12. Perceptual Speed (SR) (CS) (CF) (MV) (SS) (PI) (LE) (IL) (PN) (IM) (PS)

Literature suggests specific tasks measure each of the 12 Gv narrow cognitive abilities. The first and broadest narrow cognitive ability is Visualization (VZ). Measures for the VZ factor include assembly type tasks, block counting tasks, block rotation tasks, paper folding tasks, surface development tasks, and figural rotation tasks (Carroll, 1993; Lohman, 1994). The Block Design and Object Assembly subtests of the Wechsler intelligence assessment series and the Form Board and Form Patterns subtests of the Stanford-Binet series also may measure VZ (Carroll, 1993; G. H. Roid, personal communication, November, 7 2006; Lohman, 1994; Sattler, 2001; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Tasks that are thought to measure spatial relations (SR) include irregular card comparisons, cube comparison tasks and the Block Design subtest of the Wechsler intelligence assessment series (Carroll, 1993; Lohman, 1994; Sattler, 2001; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Tasks that are suggested to measure closing speed (CS) are the Street

Gestalt Completion test, tasks that include concealed letters, numbers or figures, and the Object Assembly task of the Wechsler Intelligence Test series (Carroll, 1993; Sattler, 2001; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Measures of flexibility of closure (CF) include tests that have hidden or embedded figures, designs, or patterns (Carroll, 1993). Measures of visual memory (MV) include a brief exposure to, then recalling in part or whole maps, pictures, designs or shapes (Carroll, 1993). The Memory for Objects subtest of the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition is considered a measure of MV (Sattler, 2001). Measures of spatial scanning (SS) involve maze tracing or planning and following a route on a twodimensional map (Carroll, 1993). The Mazes subtest of the Wechsler series may be a well-known measure of SS (Sattler, 2001). There is limited research on measures of the serial perception integration (PI) factor; however, Carroll (1993) suggests tasks that measure PI involve the rapid recognition of patterns in ordered and segmented parts (Carroll, 1993). Tasks that are suggested to measure the narrow ability of length estimation (LE) include length discrimination, length estimation, and comparison or proximity analysis of lines and points (Carroll, 1993). Tasks that measure perceptual illusions (IL) may include the estimation, contrasting, shape identification or direction identification of illusions (Carroll, 1993). Carroll (1993) suggests that perceptual alterations (PN) measurement tasks involve mental alternations of stimuli under timed conditions. Measures of imagery (IM) require the subject to visually manipulate an object and compare it to other similar non-manipulated objects (Carroll, 1993). Tasks that are believed to measure perceptual speed (PS) involve the efficiency of recognition and comparison of visual stimuli under timed conditions (Carroll, 1993). Symbol Search and Cancellation of the Wechsler

10

Intelligence Scale for Children 4 Edition may be measures of PS (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The most recent revision of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence series is purported to be aligned more closely with current theory regarding the measure of visual-spatial processing. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) published in 2003, was designed to adhere more directly to the modern CHC theory of intelligence. The SB5 was developed around five factor areas. The five factors (and their corresponding CHC cognitive ability) are Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Knowledge (Gc), Quantitative Reasoning (Gq), Working Memory (Gsm) and Visual-Spatial Processing (Gv) (see figure 1.1) (DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Roid, 2003a). Roid (2003a) used confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the factor structure of the SB5. Research substantiating the five factors however, has not been conclusive. However, DiStefano's & Dombrowski's (2006) exploratory factor analyses confirmed the SB5 as an adequate measure of general intelligence or "g", but did not confirm the five factors. Roid maintains the rigorous research that he and the test development team conducted fully substantiates the factor structure of the SB5 (G. Roid, personal communication, November 7, 2006). The SB5 has both verbal and non-verbal measures of visual-spatial processing.

11

Figure 1.1. The Structure of the SB5.

SB5
Full Scale 10
Nonverbal Domain Verbal Domain

Fluid Reasoning

Knowledge

Quantitative Reasoning

Visual-Spatial Processing

Working Memory

The SB5 defines visual-spatial processing as "... the ability to see relationships among figural objects, describe or recognize spatial orientation, identify the "whole" among a diverse set of parts and generally see patterns in visual material" (Roid & Pomplun, 2005 p. 328). The verbal and nonverbal visual-spatial subtests of the SB5 were created through a review of previous visual-spatial assessments and consultation with notable experts in the field of CHC (see table 1.2) (Dick Woodcock, John Horn & John Carroll; G. Roid personal communication November 7, 2006). The verbal visual-spatial measure of the SB5 is the Position and Direction subtest. Position and Direction requires the subject to "identify common objects and pictures using common visual/spatial terms such as "behind" and "farthest left," explain spatial directions for reaching a pictured destination or indicate direction and position in relation to a reference point" (Roid, 2003b p. 139). This subtest was derived from previous Stanford-Binet scales (Roid, 2003a). In addition, the subtest is based on Lohman's (1994) conceptualization that verbal visual-spatial tests that require a subject to create a mental image and answer

12

corresponding questions are representative of real-life usage of visual-spatial processing (Roid, 2003a). It is unclear however, which narrow cognitive ability Position and Direction measures. Neither the technical nor the administrative manual directly specifies the narrow cognitive ability (Roid, 2003a; 2003b). The nonverbal visual-spatial measures of the SB5 were also designed to align with CHC theory. The nonverbal visual-spatial processing domain of the SB5 contains two different measures. At the early levels (1 -2) the measure is the Form Board task. The Form Board task has been used with previous versions of the Stanford-Binet (Roid, 2003a). The Form Board task is believed to be a measure of Gv and the narrow cognitive ability of VZ (Carroll, 1993; Roid, 2003b). In the remaining levels of the nonverbal visual-spatial processing domain, the Form Patterns task is used. The Form Patterns subtest was selected by the test developers based on the suggestions by John Carroll, for a hands on assembly task (G. Roid, personal communication, November 7, 2006). The task requires subjects to reconstruct visually presented stimuli with geometric shapes. Form Patterns is a measure of the broad Gv and of the narrow cognitive ability of VZ (G. Roid, personal communication, November 7, 2006; Roid, 2003a). Currently there is a lack of nonpublisher developed research using the SB5 as a visual-spatial measure. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was also recently revised and has tasks that research suggests measure visual-spatial processing.

13

Figure 1.2. Visual-Spatial Processing Measures of the SB5. Visual-Spatial Processing

Nonverbal Form Board / Form Patterns

Verbal Position and Direction

The current revision of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) published in 2003 was undertaken to more accurately align the test with current intelligence theory, elevate psychometric structure, broaden applicability, and enhance evaluator usage of the instrument (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The revision of the test includes additional subtests to improve the measurement of Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Working Memory (Gsm), and Processing Speed (Gs) (Wechsler, 2003a; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). The WISC-IV's four Index scores Verbal Compression, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed combine to form the Full Scale IQ or measure of "g" (see figure 1.3). Test developers utilized exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis research to verify the four factors (Wechsler, 2003 a). However, recent research on the WISC-IV has disputed the four factors as the most appropriate organization for the assessment. Keith et al. (2006) maintains the WISC-IV is better described using five factors of the CHC Theory. Using factor analysis Keith et al. found a test framework structured on the CHC factors of Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), Visual Processing (Gv), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Short-Term Memory (Gsm) and Processing Speed (Gs) provided the best
14

fit for the test (using the standardization data). Keith et al.'s work suggests that the WISC-IV is an appropriate measure of visual-spatial processing or Gv. Figure 1.3. Structure of the WISC-IV WISC-IV

Full Scale IQ

Verbal Comprehension
TnHex

Perceptual Reasoning
TnHpv

Working Memory
InHe

Processing Speed
TnHpx

1. Similarities 2. Vocabulary 3. Comprehension 4. Information 5. Word Reasoning

1. Block Design 2. Picture Concepts 3. Matrix Reasoning 4. Picture Completion

1. Digit Span 2. LetterNumber Sequence 3. Arithmetic

1. Coding 2. Symbol Search 3. Cancellation

The subtests in bold typeface are the core subtests of the WISC-IV

The subtests of the WISC-IV that purport to measure visual-spatial processing (Gv) fall under the Perceptual Reasoning Index (see table 1.3). The Block Design subtest of the WISC-IV may be the most complete measure of visual-spatial processing in the Perceptual Reasoning Index. Block Design has been consistently utilized with the Wechsler series. The literature supports Block Design as a measure of the broad cognitive ability Gv and the narrow abilities of visualization (VZ) and spatial relations (SR) (Carroll, 1993; Keith et al, 2006; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). In addition, studies often use Block Design as a primary measure of visual-spatial processing (Carroll, 1993; Cornoldi et al., 2003; Fuchs et al., 2005; Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999; Lee et al, 2004). Sattler (2001) cautions however, that children with visual or motor skill difficulties may not do 15

well on the task; suggesting that other abilities may influence students' performance. The literature supports additional subtests of the WISC-IV as secondary measures of visualspatial processing. For example, there is literature to support that Picture Completion (PCm) is a measure of Gv. PCm involves visual responsiveness, visual perception, visual discrimination and visual memory (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). In addition, PCm is suggested to be a measure of the narrow cognitive ability, flexibility of closure (CF) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Research also supports Matrix Reasoning (MR) as a measure of visual-spatial processing (Keith et al., 2006). Sattler (2001) and Sattler and Dumont (2004) maintain that because of MR's visual-perceptual and visual-spatial processing elements it is a good measure of the broad Gv ability and the narrow VZ cognitive ability. There is some disagreement with Symbol Search (SS) as a measure of Gv. Keith et al.'s research with the WISC-IV found that SS loaded on the Gv cluster and the Gs Cluster. Sattler and Dumont (2004) maintain that SS is more strictly a measure of Processing Speed (Gs). Table 1.3 Visual-Spatial Processing Measures of the WISC-IV Subtest Block Design Picture Completion Matrix Reasoning
Symbol Search*

CHC Cognitive Ability Broad Narrow Gv Gv Gv

Gv; Gs

VZ; SR CF VZ

* Note: There is some disagreement in the literature regarding whether Symbol Search is a measure of Visual Processing or Processing Speed.

16

Significance of the Study The current and past definition of a learning disability is grounded in the idea that a SLD is a disorder in basic psychological processing. The most often used methods of identifying a SLD involve the ability-achievement discrepancy paradigm and the more recent response to intervention (RTI) process (Kavale et al., 2005; Reschly et al., 2003). Both methods fail to diagnosis a SLD based on a disorder in processing (Torgesen, 2002). It is logical if the definition of a SLD is stated as "a disorder one or more of the basic psychological processes..." then an evaluation should include an assessment of psychological processing (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 46757). There is research to support that certain processing components play an important role in reading, writing and mathematics achievement. In comparison to reading and writing, mathematics achievement has had the least amount of research in understanding the potential cognitive process involved (Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Recent literature maintains improved understanding of the cognitive components involved in mathematics achievement may increase the ability of professionals to identify and treat disabilities in mathematics (Fuchs, et. al. 2006). There are believed to be specific psychological processes involved in the basic mathematical tasks of calculation, fluency and word problems. Of the psychological process involved in the application and understanding of mathematics, working memory appears to contribute to all areas of mathematical thinking (Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). A significant sub-process of working memory is visualspatial processing (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004; Swanson & Jerman,

17

2006). Studies have shown that visual-spatial processing is related to mathematics (Geary, 2004). The recently revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) has been designed to align closely with the most current theory of intelligence, the combined Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (Roid, 2003a). The VisualSpatial factor of the SB5 is purported to be a measure of visual-spatial processing or Gv. The Visual-Spatial factor of the SB5 includes verbal (Position and Direction) and nonverbal (From Board; Form Patterns) measures of visual-spatial processing. There currently is limited non-publisher developed research on the visual-spatial measures of the SB5. In addition, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) was also recently updated to align more closely with the CHC theory of cognitive abilities (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003). Research has suggested that Bock Design, Picture Completion, and Matrix Reasoning are measures of visual-spatial processing (Gv) (Keith et al, 2006; Sattler & Dumont, 2006). There are five reasons for the current study. First, if a SLD is defined as a disorder in a basic psychological process it is important to show that processing deficits are related to a SLD. Second, there is a literature supported need for increased research in mathematics achievement. Third, there is a limited amount of research on the revised visual-spatial measures (Position and Direction; Form Board; Form Pattern) of the SB5. In addition, to date, there has been no research with visual-spatial measures of the SB5 and poor achievement in mathematics. Finally, to date there has been no research investigating the relationship between the combined visual-spatial processing measures

18

of the WISC-IV (Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Completion) and poor mathematics achievement. Statement of the Problem The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the ability of the visual-spatial measures of the Stanford-Binet-Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) to discriminate between students with and without difficulties in mathematics achievement. It is suggested from a review of literature, visual-spatial processing, as measured by the SB5 and the WISC-IV, will be significantly different between students who have a potential disability in mathematics and those who do not. In addition, the study will identify which visual-spatial measure or index has the most potential as a discriminator between students who have poor mathematics achievement and those who do not. The following research questions will be used as a guide to the current study: 1. Is there a relationship between the psychological process of visual-spatial processing (as measured by the SB5 and WISC IV) and mathematics achievement (as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement-Normative Update (WJ-III-NU)? 2. Can the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 predict mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU)? 3. What visual-spatial measure (SB5; WISC-IV) is the best predictor of poor mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU)?

19

Definition of Terms The following definitions will be useful in understanding the preceding study. Specific Learning Disability: ".. .Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia" (U. S. Department of Education, p. 46757, 2006a). Working Memory: The cognitive process that allows one to keep information at the forefront of one's thoughts while mentally manipulating that information (Geary, 1996). Visual-Spatial Processing: "The ability to generate, retain, retrieve and transform wellstructured visual images" (Lohman, 1994, p. 1000). Limitations One limitation of the current study may be some concerns regarding generalizability. Using only middle schools students in grades 6A-Sth from specific geographic locations in the West and Midwest may limit the application of the findings to specific age groups and geographic locations. This limitation may prohibit the application of the study's findings to students that are not in grades 6^-%^ and not from similar geographic areas; making it difficult to generalize the study to students that are in different age groups (younger or older) and/or come from larger or smaller communities. Another factor that may cause some concerns regarding generalizability is, only students from which parental or legal guardian consent is obtained will participate in the study limiting the subject pool. This potentially limits the participants in the study to

20

individuals that are motivated enough to obtain parent consent. That in turn may exclude those students that lack motivation to participate or may not be willing to participate do to an aversion toward testing. An additional limitation may be that the measures of the SB5 and the WISC-IV used in the study, purporting to measure visual-spatial processing, may not accurately measure this construct. Due to the complexities of how the brain analyzes and applies information, additional cognitive mechanisms may interfere with a pure measure of relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematical achievement, confounding the results of the current study. The Structure of the Proceeding Chapters The literature review in Chapter 2 will provide a structural understanding of the elements of the current study. It will identify the current literature regarding: 1) How learning disabilities are defined operationally; 2) An understanding of mathematical disabilities; 3) A conceptualization of visual-spatial processing and mathematics; 4) How visual-spatial processing is assessed. Chapter 3 will provide the methodology for the current study. The third chapter will address: 1) The participants used in the study; 2) Instruments that were utilized; 3) The procedural aspects of the study; 4) How the data were analyzed. Chapter 4 will present the results of the data analyses. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a summarization of the findings of the current study and a discussion of the implications for this research.

21

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Learning Disabilities The assessment, identification and remediation of learning disabilities are a significant focus of special education programs in today's public schools. According to the most recent data from the United States Office of Special Education (2004) there are over 2.8 million students identified as having a specific learning disability in the United States. That number translates into approximately 47% of all students being served through special educations services have a learning disability (Heward, 2006). There are disagreements with both the definition and identification of a learning disability. This first section will address the definition and identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Defined: Past and Present Defining a learning disability is complicated. In one article alone, the author identified 11 separate definitions for a learning disability (Hammill, 1990). The conceptualization of the term learning disability, in the United States, is credited to the work of Samuel Kirk in 1962-1963 (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Hammill, 1990; Hammill, Leigh, McNutt & Larsen, 1981; Heward, 2006; Kirk & Kirk, 1983; Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). In Kirk's original definition, he defines a learning disability as an underdeveloped process disorder in the academic and non-academic areas of speech, language, reading, spelling, writing or mathematics (Hammill, 1990: Kirk & Kirk, 1983). The process disorder may originate from either a brain dysfunction, behavioral dysfunction or emotional dysfunction (Hammill, 1990; Kirk & Kirk, 1983). Kirk's definition excluded individuals with mental retardation, any type of sensory deficit, and individuals whose abilities were negatively impacted by culture or instruction (Hammill,
22

1990; Kirk & Kirk, 1983). Kirk's learning disability definition is the framework for the current definition. The current learning disability definition used by special education professionals has its roots in Kirk's original definition. One main reason is Samuel Kirk was the head of the National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children (NACHC) that formulated and presented the original definition to congress and the U. S. Office of Education in 1969 (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Hammill, 1990; Kirk & Kirk, 1983; Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). The NACHC definition also identified a learning disability as a process disorder. More specifically it stated a child with a specific learning disability has a ".. .disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using spoken language. These may be manifested in a disorder of listening, thinking, talking, reading, writing, spelling or arithmetic" (NACHC, 1968, p. 34 as cited in Hammill, 1990, p. 75). That definition with minimal changes was adopted into law in 1975 as part of Public Law 94-142. The 1975 definition also identified a specific learning disability as a psychological processing disorder. More specifically it states, "The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations" (U. S. Office of Education, 1977, p 65083 as cited in Hammill, 1990, p. 77). Analyzing the current federal definition adopted by the U.S. Department of Special Education reveals the definition of a specific learning disability (SLD) has remained

23

constant from the original definition in 1977. The Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (2004) states a SLD is: (i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia, (ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a, p. 46757). Some have questioned the adequacy of the current definition (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) contends that there are limitations with the federal definition. The NJCLD believes the federal definition: 1) Fails to include adults; 2) The use of the term "basic psychological processes" is ambiguous; 3) Spelling as a disability category is redundant and can be included under a written expression disability; 4) Terms such as dyslexia, minimal brain dysfunction, perceptual impairments and developmental aphasia are outdated; 5) The exclusionary clause in the second section is confusing by failing to clearly explain why these areas are not included (NJCLD, 1991). Others have also suggested the federal definition maybe inadequate. Kavale, Holdnack and Mostert (2005) suggest one of the

24

main problems with the category of SLD in special education is the definition not the identification. They contend the federal definition lacks specificity and is fraught with vagueness (Kavale, et al, 2005). Regardless of any dissatisfaction with the current definition, little has changed regarding the federal definition of a SLD since its acceptance in 1977. Analyzing the regulations used by state education departments reveals wide spread adoption of the current federal definition of SLD. The majority of state education departments have adopted the federal definition of a SLD. Reschly, et al. (2003) investigated state education agencies (SEA) in all 50 states and identified that over 80% of states have used the federal definition. Only nine states diverted substantially from the federal definition (AL, CO, FL, MA, NV, VT, WV, NC, WI) (Reschly, et al., 2003). In further analysis of Reschly, et al.'s study, the data reveals of the 50 states, 48 states conceptualize a SLD as a possessing disorder. The only two states that do not utilize a processing disorder as a main component of their state definition of a SLD are West Virginia and Illinois (Reschly, et al, 2003). In addition, a recent unpublished review of how states currently define a SLD, found that 49 of the 51 states use the federal definition of a SLD or use the term "processing disorder" in their definition (Clifford, 2008). To conclude this section, the definition of the term SLD was first conceptualized in the early 1960's. The current definition of a SLD in the reauthorization of IDEA (2004) has changed little from the original definition in 1977 as part of P. L. 94-142. The idea that a processing disorder is a foundational element of a SLD has been held constant throughout the revisions of the definition and the law. The majority of states utilize the federal definition of a SLD. Finally, all but two of the SEAs explicitly state that a specific

25

learning disability is defined by a processing disorder. Where the majority of disagreement occurs among SEAs and professionals in the field of learning disabilities is how to best identify an individual with a SLD. Learning Disability Classification and Identification The current methods of identifying a SLD can be traced back to the U.S. Office Education in 1976. The U.S. Office of Education stated that a SLD was identified by a "severe" discrepancy between an individual's intellectual ability and academic achievement (Hammill, 1990; Reschly, et al, 2003). Specifically, it operationalized a severe discrepancy when achievement was at or below 50% of what could normally be expected given the child's age and education (Hammill, 1990). The discrepancy criteria of 50%, offered in 1976 received significant criticism by education professionals and laypersons, and was not included in the final regulations adopted as P. L. 94-142 in 1977 (Hammill, 1990; Reschly, et al., 2003). In 1977 without further guidance, the majority of states adopted the practice of classifying a SLD as a discrepancy between ability and achievement (Reschly, et al., 2003). That practice has been consistently employed by state departments of education over the past 30 years. With the initial 1975 implementation of P. L. 94-142 and the subsequent reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990 and 1997 the language continued to included identifying a SLD through a sever discrepancy between ability and achievement (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003). The regulations indicate the multidisciplinary team determines if an individual has a significant discrepancy between their level of achievement and level of ability (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). The discrepancy can be in a single area or in any

26

combination of the areas of oral and written expression, listening and reading comprehension, mathematics calculation and reasoning, and in basic reading skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). No precise criteria have been offered to quantify what was meant by significant. Current regulations have offered SEAs more options. Recently within the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, there has been a shift in the identification procedures involved with specific learning disabilities. No longer is there an implied requirement to use only a severe ability-achievement discrepancy for identification and classification purposes. The new regulations indicate that states may use as an evaluation procedure based on whether or not the student responds to a researched based intervention. In identifying a SLD SEAs: Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10); Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention; and May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(10) (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b). Some are in support of this change. Stanovich (2005) contends that the use of the achievement-discrepancy paradigm for learning disability identification in some ways is equitable to malpractice, and flies in the face of substantial research noting its inadequacy. Others believe there are unknown questions and limitations with the use of response to intervention that need to be explored before wholesale adoption (Kavale, et

27

al., 2005). To understand the complicated nature of SLD diagnosis it is relevant to discuss both methods of identification. Models of Identification: IQ-achievement Discrepancy and Response to Intervention The three most commonly used discrepancy models are the grade level discrepancy model, standard score/ standard deviation model, and the regression model (Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp & Mercer, 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003; Reschly, et al., 2003). The grade level discrepancy model is the least frequently used and is often called the deviation from grade level model (Mercer, et al., 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). In this model, a SLD is identified by a difference between the child's actual grade level and the child's achievement level (Mercer, et al, 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). The difference is indicated by a grade equivalence score on an academic achievement test (Mercer, et al., 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). In the model, the child is often required to have a minimal IQ (often 80 or 85) to receive a diagnosis of SLD (Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). In addition, the difference required for SLD identification can vary from 1-2 grade levels (Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). Concerns regarding this method include the potential for over identification of slow learners, under identification of students with higher IQ sores and the inaccuracy of grade level placements (Mercer, et al., 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). The standard score/ standard deviation model, also called the simple discrepancy model, is a frequently used model by state departments of education (Reschly, et al. 2003). This method identifies a SLD by a discrepancy between an intelligence assessment score and an achievement test score. State criteria can vary for identifying a severe discrepancy. Some states use standard deviation (SD) differences of between 1.0-

28

2.0 to indicate a severe discrepancy (Reschly, et al. 2003). Other states may use standard score units with magnitude variations of between 15-20 standard score points (Reschly, et al. 2003). The use of varying standard scores and SD levels produces inconsistencies in SLD identification among state departments of education. Some contend that problems with using this model lie in three areas: 1) Difference scores are unreliable; 2) The model fails to identify poor readers; 3) The model does not account for regression to the mean (Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). The third model is the regression model. The regression model is also frequently used by state departments of education (Mercer, et al. 1996; Reschly, et al. 2003). The regression model improves on the simple discrepancy model by controlling for the correlation between cognitive and achievement tests (Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). The regression model for determining SLD is founded on two critical items: 1) The discrepancy between the individuals' achievement score and the mean achievement score of individuals with similar ability levels; 2) A discrepancy between the individual's level of achievement and ability level (Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). Some suggest that issues with this model center on a lack of consistency in implementation, and laypersons difficulty in understanding the model (Mercer, et al. 1996; Proctor & Prevatt, 2003). The most recent method of SLD identification, endorsed by federal legislation, is centered on a student's failure to respond to a research based intervention. The failure to respond method is often described in the literature as response to intervention (RTI). In the reauthorization of IDEA, RTI is not specifically mentioned nor are any procedural guidelines given (National Research Center on Learning Disabilities [NRCLD], 2005). The lack of specific methodological requirements in the law leaves the process open to

29

interpretation by individual states. RTI bases the identification of a SLD on the failure of a student to respond to rigorous implementation of empirically backed interventions (Kavale, et al. 2005). Some experts in the field have defined RTI as an observable change in academic performance or behavior precipitated by an intervention (Gresham, 2002). The first step in identifying a SLD by RTI is to provide and implement well-researched and proven instructional techniques in the classroom (Kavale et al, 2005; NRCLD, 2005). Second, each individual student's performance is monitored for changes (Kavale et al, 2005; NRCLD, 2005). Third, students that fail to respond to research validated instructional techniques receive additional intensive instruction (Kavale, et al., 2005; NRCLD, 2005). Fourth, progress or lack of progress is again monitored (Kavale, et al, 2005; NRCLD, 2005). If a student does not adequately progress with intensive instructional interventions, the student is identified with a SLD and qualifies for special education services (Kavale, et al., 2005; NRCLD, 2005). Often in the RTI model, students' progress is monitored by using curriculum-based measurements and graphing of certain academic benchmarks (Gresham, 2002). There is some concern in the literature regarding the use of this SLD identification model. Some contend that RTI models focus heavily on reading disabilities and fail to address other areas of academic weakness (Kavale, et al, 2005). In addition, an aspect associated with RTI models is the need for validated screening of academic difficulties; however, there is a lack of constancy regarding what type of screening method should be used (Semrud-Clikeman, 2005). Another criticism of RTI is that previous research has mainly been conducted with younger students (K-2) and there is a dearth of evidence of appropriateness with older students (Semrud-Clikeman, 2005). Other areas of concern

30

regarding RTI include: 1) Identifying the best intervention for each individual student; 2) Deciding how long and to what degree an intervention should be implemented; 3) Uncertainty over who is responsible for implementing the intervention, monitoring the intervention, and the rigor of implementation; 4) The associated costs of providing intensive interventions to students (Gresham, 2002). Summary There are a substantial number of students in public schools identified as having a learning disability. The definition of a SLD has changed little from its first acceptance in 1977 as part of P. L. 94-142 to the present IDEA improvement act of 2004. The identification of a student with a SLD has in the past, primarily consisted of a discrepancy between an individual's ability and their achievement level. Recently federal regulations are allowing a student's failure to respond to a researched based intervention as a classification method of SLD. It is apparent there is a disconnect between the current definition of a SLD and how it is identified. The definition of SLD adopted by both the federal government and the majority of states is centered on the concept that learning disabilities are at their roots a processing disorder; however, processing disorders in the identification of a SLD are often not considered. Of the previously noted 49 states that define a SLD as processing disorder, only one utilizes processing in their classification criteria (Clifford, 2008). If the definition of a SLD is based on the idea it is a processing disorder, then it is prudent that SLD identification should include elements of a processing disorder evaluation (Torgesen, 2002). If the classification of SLD does not include the evaluation of processing components then the definition of a SLD may need to be modified. Completely understanding the definition of a SLD requires understanding

31

what is meant by psychological processes. The next section will address the processing components most often involved in academic abilities. Psychological Processing and Learning Disabilities Psychological processes are those processes that involve the effective use of higher cognitive abilities such as the use of language, attention, utilization of memory, thinking abstractly, solving problems, and perceptually based skills (Gerring, & Zimbardo, 2002). Because the federal definition and the majority of state definitions of a SLD emphasize a SLD as a processing disorder it is relevant to identify which psychological process are involved in learning disabilities. The most common academic learning disability diagnoses found in schools (excluding speech disorders) are learning disabilities in reading, written language and mathematics (Heward, 2006). This next section will address each learning disability area (reading, written language and mathematics) identifying the most common psychological processes involved. Reading Reading difficulties are the most frequently diagnosed learning disability (Joseph, 2002). Some estimate almost 90% of students identified as learning disabled have a reading disability (Heward, 2006). Others suggest that as many as 15% of all students have reading difficulties (McCormick, 2003). The research suggests there are five main cognitive processes involved in reading: 1) Phonological processing; 2) Syntactic processing; 3) Working memory; 4) Semantic processing; 5) Orthographic processing (Siegel, 2002). Phonological processing is often considered the most important processing area in reading development (Gray and McCutchen, 2006; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000: Siegel,

32

2003). Phonological processing involves the association of sounds with single or combined letters (Siegel, 2003). Specifically, it is the understanding of the relationship between graphemes and phonemes in language (Siegel, 2003). Support for the importance of phonological processing's role in reading comes for the work of Gray and McCutchen (2006). Gray and McCutchen found a strong correlation between phonological awareness (a significant component of phonological processing) and reading tasks such as word reading and sentence comprehension. Gray and McCutchen compared scores on the Test of Phonological Awareness Skills to timed word reading and sentence comprehension tasks with students in kindergarten, first grade and second grade. Gray's and McCutchen's results suggest children whose scores were high in phonological awareness were more than twice as likely to score above the mean on word reading tasks compared to those who scored low in phonological awareness (Gray and McCutchen, 2006). The results of the study suggest that aspects of phonological processing such as phonological awareness may be important for early reading skills. Syntactic processing also appears to be involved with reading skills. The second significant processing component of reading is syntactic processing (Siegel, 2003). Syntactic processing is the understanding of basic sentence structure or the grammatical structure used in language (McCormick, 2003; Siegel, 2003). Support for syntactic processing as a process of reading comes from the work of Holsgrove and Garton (2006). The study involved assessing the reading comprehension of middle school students. Holsgrove and Garton used measures of working memory, phonological processing and syntactic processing. To measure syntactic processing Holsgrove and Garton employed the aural moving-window technique that required students to analyze

33

syntactically ambiguous printed sentences. The authors found that syntactic processing was a significant predictor of reading comprehension among the 13-year-old students. Additionally, Holsgrove and Garton with regression analysis determined that syntactic processing was a significant discriminator of students with and without reading difficulties (Holsgrove & Garton, 2006). Working memory may also play a role in student's ability to read. In reading, working memory involves the ability to decode words while simultaneously retaining what has been read (McCormick, 2003; Siegel, 2003). Swanson, Howard and Saez (2006) found, with students varying in age from 7-to-17 years-of-age, that working memory was a significant discriminator between students with and without reading disabilities. Swanson, et al. (2006) used working memory measures such as digit and sentence span tasks, a semantic association task, a listening span task and the backward digit span of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ill to assess the working memory of the subjects. Matching subjects for IQ and written math calculation Swanson et al. found that students identified as reading disabled performed poorer on working memory tasks when compared to non-reading disabled students. Swanson et al.'s results suggest that working memory may be a contributing cognitive process in reading ability. The literature suggests semantic processing may also be related to students reading ability. Semantic processing, understanding the meaning of sentences, is an important cognitive process in reading (McCormick, 2003; Siegel, 2003). Evidence for this comes from a study conducted by Nation and Snowling (1998). Nation's and Snowling's study involved a comparison of average readers and students identified as having significant

34

difficulty with comprehension. Nation and Snowling matched students for decoding and nonverbal ability. The authors used measures of both expressive and receptive language to assess semantic processing differences between the two groups. Nation and Snowling found that semantic processing significantly discriminated between readers with comprehension difficulties and average readers. The results of the study suggest that semantic processing may be an important component in children's ability to comprehend written material. Some research also supports orthographic processing's relationship to students' reading ability. The final research identified significant cognitive process in reading is orthographic processing. Orthographic processing is the knowledge or awareness of word structure, specifically the knowledge of letters and spelling patterns (McCormick, 2003; Siegel, 2003). Badian (2001) suggests a link between orthographic processing and reading. Badian conducted a longitudinal study that followed the same group of children from preschool to seventh grade. Badian used letter identification tasks as orthographic processing measures. Badian found, among students with average to above average intelligence, that orthographic processing skills at kindergarten were a significant predictor of poor reading skills of those children in 7th grade. The results of the Badian study suggest that deficits in orthographic processing may lead to poor reading ability in later years. The next section will look at the cognitive processes involved in writing. Writing Prevalence rates of writing disabilities are difficult to estimate due to differences in qualitative and quantitative distinctions (Hooper, Swartz, Wakely, de Kruif, & Montgomery, 2002). As a measure of the number of students that struggle with writing,

35

14 % of all 4 graders, 15% of all 8 graders, and 26% of the 12 graders students who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2002 were below basic skill levels in writing (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2002). The literature regarding the cognitive processes involved in writing is less clear in comparison to reading. The research suggests that there are six psychological processes involved in writing: 1) Phonological processing; 2) Orthographic processing; 3) Working memory; 4) Long-term memory; 5) Short term memory; 6) Morphological processing. The section will look at the cognitive processes of writing in two ways. First, it will discuss the processes in the holistic act of writing. Second, it will discuss spelling as a sub-skill within writing. Writing Processes One of the more well know cognitive processing models of writing was developed by Flower and Hayes in 1980 and latter expanded by Hayes (2000). The Hayes model identifies the cognitive processes of writing as text interpretation, reflection and text production (Hayes, 2000). Within those areas, Hayes states that working memory (specifically phonological memory) is related to text interpretation because it incorporates reading, listening and graphical scanning. Hayes theorizes that within working memory the visual/spatial sketchpad is related to reflection skills. Hayes posits that visual-spatial processing is involved when the individual utilizes internal representations to prepare for the production of text. Hayes also believes text production is related to long-term memory. Text production requires an individual to use previous knowledge to construct text in a meaningful and coherent manner (Hayes, 2000). One apparent criticism of Hayes model is, at best, it is a general model of cognitive process

36

and lacks specificity. In addition, Hayes offers little empirical research to support his theory. In order to identify the specific processes involved one must look beyond his model. Research suggests that phonological processing is involved in writing (Berninger, Abbot, Thomson, & Raskind, 2001; Johnson, 1993; McGrew & Knopik, 1993). McGrew and Knopik (1993) found phonological processing to have a significant relationship to writing achievement. McGrew and Knopik studied the cognitive clusters of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised (WJC-R) in comparison to individual's Basic Writings Skills and Written Expression clusters scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R). McGrew and Knopik, using the WJ-R standardization sample, found that phonological processes (Auditory Processing) were significantly related to basic writing skills and written expression skills. Berninger et al. (2001) offers a more comprehensive study of the processing components of writing. Berninger, et al. (2001) found phonological processing to be a significant predictor of writing skills. Berninger et al. discovered phonological measures contributed unique variance to written composition abilities of students in first through sixth grades. Berninger et al. used structural equation modeling to compare the relationship between phonological processing tasks such as phonemic deletion, segmentation, and nonword memory and writing tasks including handwriting and written composition. Berninger et al. found that phonological processing contributed unique variance to writing composition beyond what could be accounted for by intellectual ability. In addition, Berninger et al. found that orthographic processing appears to be important in written

37

composition tasks and handwriting. Berninger et al. compared letter cluster coding, an orthographic measure that required no memory usage and an orthographic measure that tapped long-term memory to students' story composition skills and handwriting. The results suggested that a combined orthographic processing factor was a significant contributor to story composition and handwriting ability. The role of working memory and long-term memory in writing is less clear. Some support for the role of working memory in writing comes from the work of Kellogg (1994; 2001a), Hopper et al. (2002), and Swanson and Berninger (1996). Kellogg (1994) maintains that in writing working memory is involved in temporarily holding and manipulating ideas that are constructed into sentences. Kellogg (2001a) supports this view through the study of text generation and response time analysis. Kellogg's (2001a), study involved college students and writing ability. The study compared the construction of narrative texts (in both longhand and word processing) in combination with an interference task (a computer-generated tone that required students to say their thoughts regarding their work at varying 10-15 second intervals). Kellogg (2001a) suggests students' response times were an indication of working memory capacity. Kellogg (2001a) contends because students' response times across the tasks of planning, translating and reviewing were all consistent it provided evidence for the utilization of working memory across all three areas. A caveat is warranted with this study. First, Kellogg offered little researched support for the idea that response time and reflection were an indication of working memory capacity. Second, Kellogg failed to use any empirically validated measures of working memory in his study.

38

A study by Hooper et al. (2002) also offers inconclusive results regarding the role of working memory in writing. Hopper et al.'s study involved the assessment of working memory as a component of a larger assessment of central executive tasks, including measures of inhibition, and attention. Hooper et al. compared a working memory task that employed sentence construction from visually displayed pictures (while performing an interference task) and student scores on a written narrative task. Hopper et al. maintains the study's results suggested that working memory plays an important role in the differentiation between good and poor writers of narrative material. As with Kellogg's study, caution should be used in the interpretation of this study's results. First, Hopper et al's measure of working memory capacity involved an interference task and not an empirically validated measure of working memory. Second, Hopper et al's results, failed to separate out the working memory assessment, leaving it as an element of a larger domain that consisted of other nonworking memory related measures. Swanson's and Berninger's (1996) study of fourth graders may offer a more concise explanation of working memory's role in writing. Swanson and Berninger (1996) used both verbal and visual-spatial working memory measures to explore working memory in writing. The authors employed working memory tasks that included sentence spans, rhyming, semantics (categorization and association), phrase sequencing and story recall in conjunction with visual matrices, mapping tasks and direction tasks (Swanson & Berninger, 1996). The authors compared both verbal and visual-spatial measures to writing tasks that included expository and narrative composition, handwriting and spelling. Swanson and Berninger, controlling for the effects of age, found that overall there was a significant relationship between working

39

memory tasks and writing skills, particularly as it related to the executive system. An important component of the Swanson and Berninger study is the authors found that shortterm memory contributed significantly to spelling and handwriting, but not text construction. The results suggest a separation of roles of working memory and short-term memory in writing. Long-term memory processing may also be involved in writing ability. Some suggest that long-term memory may play an important role in the generation of text (Hayes, 2000; Kellogg, 1994; Kellogg 2001b). Limited support for the role of long-term memory comes from a study conducted by Kellogg (2001b). Kellogg conducted two experiments with college-aged students. In the first experiment, Kellogg used domain knowledge as an indicator of long-term memory. Kellogg analyzed narrative and persuasive text production in comparison to verbal ability (as measured by verbal domain scores on a standardized test) and quality of production. Kellogg's results suggest verbal ability did not affect text recall; rather text recall was affected by domain knowledge. In the experiment, Kellogg used an interference task to measure response time in combination with individual differences in verbal ability and domain knowledge. The results of the study suggest that short-term memory (as measured by response time) and verbal ability (as measured by verbal score on the standardized test) were not as important as domain knowledge regarding text quality (Kellogg, 2001). Caution should be used in unqualified acceptance of Kellogg's results. First, longterm memory as Kellogg conceptualizes is difficult to quantify. Second, Kellogg offers little evidence regarding response time as a true measure of short-term memory. Kellogg's study contributes confusion to psychological processing and writing. A better

40

understanding of the psychological processes involved in writing may come from an analysis of processes involved in spelling. Spelling Processes Spelling is a key component of writing. As a subcomponent of writing, it appears that phonological processing, orthographic processing, morphological processing, shortterm memory and working memory may play a role in spelling skills (Berninger & Amtmann 2003). Cornwall (1992) studied phonological awareness and spelling skills in elementary students. Controlling for age, IQ, SES, and behavior problems Cornwall, identified that phonological awareness (measured by decoding, blending and phonemic deletion) was a significant predictor of spelling ability. Hauerwas and Walker (2003) investigated the phonological, orthographic and morphological processing in 11-13 yearold students with and without spelling deficits. The authors divided the students into two groups (spelling deficit and non-spelling deficit) based on their scores on the spelling subtest of the Wide Rage Achievement Test 3 and one group as an age-matched control. The authors compared measures on phonemic deletion tasks, non-word cloze tasks, non-word-choice tasks and inflection spelling tasks among the three groups. Hauerwas and Walker (2003) found that orthographical and phonological awareness were significant predictors of the spelling of base words, while morphological awareness was a significant predictor of students' ability to spell inflected verbs. The results suggest phonological, orthographic and morphological processing may play a role in the spelling ability of students. Support for the role of short-term and working memory in spelling comes from the previously mentioned Swanson and Berninger (1996) study. Swanson and Berninger used the spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised to

41

identify the relationship between spelling, working memory and short-term memory. The results indicated significant correlations between verbal short-term memory tasks, verbal working memory tasks and executive processing (combined verbal and visual spatial tasks) and spelling. The results suggest that working memory and short-term memory both play a role in spelling. In addition, literature suggests psychological processes are utilized in mathematical thinking. Mathematics Mathematical learning disabilities are not as prevalent as reading and writing learning disabilities (Fleischner, & Manhemier, 1997; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003; Geary 2004; Geary & Hoard 2003; Jordan, & Montani 1997). In comparison to other disabilities (such as reading) there has been substantially less research in the area of mathematics SLD (Augustyniak, Murphy, & Phillips, 2004; Geary & Hoard, 2003; Robinson, Menchetti, & Torgensen, 2002). There is research to suggest however, there are five significant cognitive processes involved in mathematics; 1) Working memory; 2) Phonological processing; 3) Attention; 4) Long term memory; 5) And the combined PASS cognitive processes. Working memory in mathematics involves holding mathematical concepts, numbers and ideas at the forefront of thought for a short duration, while simultaneously applying that information to mathematical processes (Fuchs, et al. 2005; Fuchs, et al. 2006; Swanson, 2004). Working memory appears to be a significant contributor to children's mathematical thinking (Passolunghi & Siegel, 2004). Swanson and Sachse-Lee (2001) employed working memory measures such as sentence span, auditory digit sequencing, matrices, mapping and directions, with eight and eleven year-old elementary

42

students. Swanson and Sachse-Lee found the combined score on the working memory measures contributed unique variance to solution accuracy in mathematical word problems. The results of the study suggest a link between working memory processes and mathematical problem solving. Research also supports phonological processing's role in mathematical thinking. Phonological processing also appears to be a notable cognitive process in mathematical ability (Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs, et al. 2006; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Sachse-Lee 2001). Support for phonological processing's involvement in mathematical thinking comes from the work of Swanson (2004). Swanson found a relationship between phonological processing and the mathematical ability of eight and eleven year-old elementary students. Swanson compared the phonological processing measures of phonemic deletion, rapid digit naming and digit span with students' scores on the Calculation subtest of the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. The calculation abilities of both ages had a significant relationship with their phonological processing abilities. The results of Swanson's study suggest that phonological processing may play an important role in mathematics irrespective of the reading involved in word problem solution. The psychological process of attention may also be involved with mathematical thinking. Attention also appears to be an important cognitive process across all areas of mathematics (Fuchs, et al. 2005; Fuchs, et al., 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). Some support for this comes from the work of Fuchs, et al. (2005). In the Fuchs et al. study, the authors examined the cognitive determinants of early mathematical difficulties with students in first grade. Fuchs et al. utilized the short form of the Social

43

Skills Rating System to assess students' attention. The students were evaluated both at beginning of the year and the end of the year. Students were assessed on an attentional rating system, curriculum based measurements for mathematics and the Calculation and Applied Problems subtests of the Woodcock Johnson-III. Fuchs et al. found that attentional ratings of teachers were the most salient predictor of mathematical difficulty or success across the areas of fact fluency, computation, story problems and mathematical concepts/applications. Fuchs, et al.'s results confirmed previous research in the role of attention and mathematics (Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). Research also suggests that long-term memory may be an important cognitive process in mathematical thinking. The fourth cognitive process that appears to be influential in mathematics is longterm memory or semantic memory (Geary, 1993). Support for long-term memory's role in mathematics comes from a meta-analysis of math-disabilities literature conducted by Swanson and Jerman (2006). Swanson and Jerman identified 28 rigorously conducted studies. All 28 studies included a comparison of average students, students with reading disabilities, students with reading and math disabilities, and students with math disabilities. Swanson and Jerman found that for each of almost 200 subjects, identified in the separate studies, long-term memory was significantly correlated to their mathematical abilities. The results suggest that long-term memory processes may have a relationship to students' mathematical thinking. Researchers have also suggested alternative combined processes may be involved in mathematical thinking. Kroesberger, Van Luit and Naglieri (2003) posit a different theory of cognitive processing may best identify how mathematical material is processed. Kroesberger, et al.

44

(2003) contends that the PASS cognitive processes of planning, attention, simultaneous and successive (PASS) play an important role in mathematical thinking. The authors' study was based on previous research that has linked all four of the PASS processes to mathematical achievement (Kroesberger, et al. 2003). Kroesberger, et al. studied Dutch elementary students identified with a math learning disability. The study compared low scores on a standardized achievement test with student's scores on the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) (a measure of the PASS processes). Kroesberger et al. found that when compared to a non learning-disabled reference sample, the students with mathematical disabilities produced lower PASS scale scores across all four processes. The authors' maintain, the results of the study suggest that the PASS cognitive processes play an important role in students' mathematical thinking (Kroesberger et al., 2003). Summary The definition of SLD endorsed by the U.S. Education Department and the majority of state education departments defines a SLD as a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological process. Psychological processes include the areas of attention, language, problem solving, memory, higher order thinking and perception. Three of the most common SLD are learning disabilities in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics. Research supports the idea that there may be certain psychological processes involved in reading, writing and mathematics. The five main psychological processing supported by research in reading include phonological processing, syntactic processing, working memory, semantic processing and orthographic processing. The six main research supported psychological process involved in writing include phonological processing, orthographic processing, working memory, short-term memory, long-term

45

memory and morphological processing. The five main research identified psychological processes involved in mathematics are working memory, phonological processing, attention, long-term memory and the PASS cognitive processes. It is apparent from a review of literature on SLD that in comparison to other learning disabilities there has been considerably less research in mathematics (Augustyniak, et al., 2004; Geary & Hoard, 2003; Robinson, Menchetti, & Torgensen, 2002; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). This suggests that further research in the area of mathematical disabilities would be beneficial to the field of SLD. The following section will look specifically at a SLD in the area of mathematics. Mathematical Disabilities The mathematical abilities children develop in school are important skills they will need to be successful in their day-to-day functioning as adults (Assel, Landry, Swank, Smith & Steelman, 2003; Griffin, 2003). The prevalence of mathematical disabilities (MD) in school-aged children is notable (Jordan, & Montani 1997). It is estimated that between 5-8% of students in public schools have MD (Fleischner, & Manhemier, 1997; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003; Geary 2004; Geary & Hoard 2003). Some contented that those estimates lack accuracy and may be an actual overstatement of the disability (Fuchs, et al., 2005; Geary, 2003). Fuchs, et al. (2005) maintains that there are four reasons for the lack of accuracy: 1) Research has been neglectful in studying complex forms of math difficulty; 2) The lack of proven prevention programs in primary grades may contribute to over diagnosis; 3) Most studies fail to address the prevalence of the disability as it is defined; 4) MD is often defined and identified differently across studies. Regardless of the exact figure, the literature supports the existence of children

46

with mathematical difficulties. The following section will discuss the definition and identification of MD. Next, it will address the cognitive processes involved in mathematical calculation, mathematical fluency and mathematical word problems. The section will conclude by exploring potential subtypes of disabilities in mathematics. Mathematical Disabilities: Definition and Identification The diagnosis and definition of MD are ambiguous. Exploring that ambiguity will begin with a look at the definition of MD. According to the IDEA 2004, MD are a disorder in a psychological process used in spoken or written language that has manifested in a less than perfect ability to engage in mathematical calculations (U. S. Department of Education, 2006). Others have suggested that MD are better understood by unusual struggles in the areas of".. .the arithmetic module, conceptual knowledge base, or problem-solving space of the domain-specific functional math system, given the student's verbal quantitative, and/or visual-spatial reasoning ability" (Busse, Berninger, Smith & Hildebrand, 2001, p. 238). The federal definition seems to lack specificity and operationalzing MD based on Busse et al's (2001) definition may be more comprehensive; however, the federal definition of learning disabilities is the accepted definition by the majority of SEAs (Reschly, et al. 2003). For the purpose of this study, MD will be defined as a disorder in psychological processing. The literature however, does not agree on the most appropriate method to identify MD. MD have been diagnosed and identified in the past with the IQ-achievement paradigm employed with other learning disabilities. With the changes in the federal regulations, some have suggested using RTI may be a more appropriate method of MD identification. Fuchs et al. (2005) investigated preventative tutoring as SLD identification

47

technique with first grade students. Fuchs et al. was able to identify MD students at a prevalence rate similar to the overall prevalence rate (4-7%) identified in other non-RTI studies (Fuchs et al., 2005). The authors' suggest their results support RTI as an alternative to IQ-achievement diagnosis (Fuchs et al., 2005). A review of literature on the diagnosis and identification of MD reveals research most often employs standardized assessments to identify MD, but criteria for inclusion is unclear. The research is inconsistent regarding the criteria that should be used with achievement and intelligence assessments to identify MD. Researchers have suggested cut-off scores that range from the 10 percentile to the 45 percentile on mathematic achievement tests with and without intelligence comparisons (Fuchs et al, 2005; Gersten, Jordan & Flojo, 2005; Mazzocco, 2005: Mazzocco & Meyer, 2003; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 2007). Some experts suggest that scores lower than the 20th or 25th percentile on a mathematical achievement test and in combination with a low average or higher IQ score is the preferred method of identification (Fuchs & Fuchs 2003; Geary, 2004). Some literature suggests that an IQ-achievement discrepancy is not a necessary factor in the determination of MD (Gersten, et al., 2005; Mazzocco & Meyer, 2003; Murphy, et al, 2007). Support for this may come from a study conducted by Mazzocco and Meyer (2003). Mazzocco and Meyer followed the same cohort of students from kindergarten to 3 rd grade. The authors investigated students scoring in the 10th percentile or less on the Test of Early Math Ability-Second Edition. Mazzocco and Meyer found the majority of students scoring in 10th percentile across all three years of the study did not have a consistently significant IQ-Achievement discrepancy. Mazzocco and Meyer posit that the study's results suggest that using a mathematical achievement test alone may be a

48

more accurate predictor of MD. Fleischner and Manheimer (1997) diverge substantially from other researchers in identifying MD. Fleischner and Manheimer, suggest that achievement tests for MD lack the specificity needed for MD determination. Fleischner and Manheimer advocate for error analysis of students' mathematical performance and clinical interviews for diagnosis of MD. Fleischner and Manheimer suggest avoiding standardized testing will provide more accurate strength and weakness information for understanding and quantifying MD. In the literature, identification methods fail to address the definition of MD as a processing disorder. In order to explore the use of processing components in MD identification, it is important to further understand the processes involved in mathematical thinking. The next section will look at the role psychological processes play in specific mathematical tasks. Specific Mathematical Tasks and Their Cognitive Processes Literature has reported that little is known about the cognitive processes that are involved in MD and mathematics achievement (Floyd, Evans, & McGrew, 2003). Recently the literature suggests that increased understanding of the processing components of mathematics may lead to improved identification and treatment (Fuchs, et al., 2006). This suggests further understanding of the cognitive processes involved in mathematics would benefit the field of SLD research. As mentioned previously, the literature supports four basic cognitive processes in general mathematic ability including, phonological processing, working memory, long-term memory, attention and the collective PASS cognitive processes. This next section will explore specific cognitive process involved in the specific areas of mathematical calculation, mathematical fluency and mathematical word problems.

49

Calculation and Fluency The literature often does not separate calculation tasks that involve pure mathematical computation components from fluency tasks that are identified as computational tasks under a time constraint. The lack of separation impedes clear exploration of the cognitive processes involved in calculation and fluency tasks. The literature does suggest there are five basic cognitive processes involved in both calculation and fluency tasks. The psychological processes identified by research are: 1) Attention; 2) Working memory; 3) Short-term memory; 4) Long-term (semantic) memory; 4) Phonological processing. This subsection will provide support for these processes in calculation and fluency tasks. Attentional processes appear to play a significant role in the calculation abilities of students (Fuchs et al., 2006; Fuchs et al, 2005). Fuchs et al. (2006) found that attention was a significant predictor of the computational ability of third graders. Fuchs' et al. (2006) measured third graders attention using a teacher rating scale and their computational skills using an author derived double-digit addition and subtraction task. Fuchs et al. (2006) identified that attention contributed unique variance beyond other cognitive process (phonological, working memory, long-term memory) to solution accuracy on the computational task. These results confirmed a previous study conducted by Fuchs et al. (2005). In the Fuchs et al. (2005) study the authors explored the cognitive factors associated with early mathematical development of first graders. The results indicated the attentional rating by teachers was a significant predictor of first grade students' year-end calculation skills on the Calculation subtest of the WoodcockJohnson-III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) (Fuchs et al., 2005). The results of both

50

studies suggest there may be a relationship between calculation ability and attention, at least in the early years of mathematical skill development. Aspects of memory processing also appear to be influential in calculation and fluency skills. Working memory appears to play a role in calculation and fluency tasks in mathematics (Geary, 2004; McLean & Hitch, 1999; Swanson, 2004; Swanson, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). The literature is unclear however, on the exact component of working memory (executive process; episodic buffer; phonological loop; visual-spatial sketchpad) that is involved (these components will be explained later in the chapter). Swanson (2006) investigated the role of working memory using tasks including listening span, sentence/digit span, semantic association, visual-matrix tasks and mapping-directions tasks. Swanson compared those working memory tasks to students' calculations skills using the arithmetic computation subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Tests-Third Edition, the Wechsler Individuals Achievement Test, and a timed computational fluency task (creating a combined calculation cluster). Swanson tested elementary students in grades first through third initially and one year later. Swanson found that not only did working memory significantly correlate with the calculation skills, but also discovered that working memory significantly predicted second year calculation skills. Specifically, separate measures of working memory such as tests of executive processes and tests of visual-spatial processes independently predicted calculation performance (Swanson, 2006). The results suggest two components of working memory (executive processing and visual-spatial processing) may play an important role in students' calculations abilities. The results of this study confirmed previous research conducted by Swanson (2004).

51

Swanson's (2004) study examined age related differences between eight and eleven-year-old children. Swanson (2004) compared students' scores on the Calculation subtest of the WJ-III, to their combined working memory scores across digit and sentence span tasks, listening spans tasks, visual-matrices, a mapping and a direction task. Swanson (2004) found a significant relationship between calculation abilities and the combined working memory tasks. The results suggest that working memory plays an important role in the age related differences of calculation ability. Some caution is warranted with both studies. Swanson (2006) did not separate out fluency computational tasks and the calculation tasks. The lack of separation produces reduced clarity on working memory's relationship to each separate mathematical task. Swanson (2004) did not separate out the relationships between the separate working memory tasks. The lack of clear distinction may provide evidence for a general working memory relationship, but lack sufficient working memory substructure specificity. Floyd, et al. (2003) also found significant relationships between working memory and calculation abilities. Floyd et al. (2003) compared the cognitive clusters of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive (WJ-III COG) abilities to Calculation subtests of the WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III). Floyd et al., using the 6-19 year-old standardization sample for the two assessments, found the working memory subtest of the WJ-III COG had a consistently significant relationship to the calculation subtests (Calculation and Fluency) of the WJ-III. Floyd et al.'s results disagree with Swanson (2006) on the relationship of the visual-spatial processing component of working memory to calculation skills. Using WJ-III COG measures of visual-spatial processing, Floyd et al. did not find a significant relationship between calculation abilities of the WJ-III and

52

visual-spatial processing. The differences between the two studies may suggest further clarification on visual-spatial processing's role in calculation abilities may be needed. In addition, Floyd et al. reported that working memory's relationship to calculation abilities was consistently stronger than the Working Memory and Memory Span combined cluster. The results suggest the more pronounced role of working memory when compared to passive short-term memory in calculation tasks. Floyd et al. however, failed to separate subtests of mathematical fluency and mathematical calculation in the WJ-III calculations cluster. The lack of specificity among these studies leads to ambiguity in the role of working memory on each separate mathematical task. The literature also suggests that short-term memory may be related to both mathematical calculation and fluency skills. The role of short-term memory in calculation and fluency is not clear. Short-term memory processing tasks are passive tasks that do not require active mental manipulation (Passolunghi & Siegel, 2004). Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger (2004) combined short-term memory measures including digit span forward, digit span backward, word span and pseudo word span to form a short-term memory cluster. That cluster was then compared to elementary students' combined scores on the arithmetic subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Test, Wechsler Individual Achievement test and the Test of Computational Fluency. Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger found that short-term memory had a significant correlation to the arithmetic calculation scores of first, second and third grade students. Two cautions are apparent with the results of the Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger study. First, it could be argued that digit span backward is a working memory task, because it involves active manipulation of numbers. Second, the

53

authors combined basic calculation subtests with a calculation fluency test for their category of arithmetic calculation. The combination of these elements does not lend itsself to separate task and process identification. Floyd, et al. (2003) also assessed shortterm memory tasks and mathematical calculation. Floyd et al. found a significant relationship between passive short-term memory tasks such as the Memory Span of the WJ-III COG and the mathematical calculation composite on the WJ-III. Similar to the Swanson and Beebe Frankenberger (2004) study Floyd et al. did not separate out tasks of calculation and fluency. The lack of separation in both studies provides uncertainty of short-term memory processes and their relationship to separate calculation and fluency tasks. The cognitive process of long-term (semantic) memory and its relationship to calculation and fluency tasks is also unclear. Some researchers have asserted that the ability to retrieve mathematical facts used in computational tasks is related to the processing component of semantic or long-term memory (Geary, 1993; 2004). Research is mixed on the role of this construct; possibly do to the difficulty in the measurement of long-term memory processes. Fuchs et al. (2005) assessed third graders' long-term memory using the Retrieval Fluency subtest of the WJIII. Fuchs et al. did not find a significant relationship between long-term memory processes and tasks of mathematical fluency and computation. The previously mentioned Floyd et al. (2003) study however, did find a relationship between long-term retrieval ability measured by the WJ-III COG and the mathematical calculation subtests of the WJIII. Cautions with the Floyd et al. study include, there was only a significant relationship between measures at ages 6-years to 8-years old and no separation between the Calculation and Fluency subtests of the WJ-III. Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger

54

(2004) utilized a semantic fluency measure with mathematical computation and mathematical fluency tasks on first, second and third grade students. Swanson and BeebeFrankenberger found a significant relationship between semantic processing and the nonseparated calculation and fluency tasks. Efficiently processing sound-letter combinations may also play a role in calculation and fluency skills. Phonological processing may play a role in mathematical calculation and fluency skills. Support for the role of phonological processing and calculation comes from the previously mentioned Swanson (2006) study. Swanson compared first, second and third grader's scores on assessments of phonological processing (pseudo-words and segmentation tasks), and measures of calculation and fluency. Swanson found students' phonological processing was significantly related to their calculation skills. Swanson however, did not endorse the role of phonological processing in calculation tasks. The final regression model included measures of reading vocabulary, and phonological processing. Phonological processing did not contribute unique variance in the final model (Swanson did not differentiate between calculation and fluency tasks). Clearer support for phonological processing in mathematical calculation tasks may come from Fuchs et al. (2005). Fuchs et al.'s results suggest that phonological processing has an important relationship with students' scores on the Calculation subtest of WJ-III. Fuchs et al. used the rapid digit naming and sound matching subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing to create a phonological processing index. The authors found the phonological processing index was a significant predictor of first graders calculation skills. While the majority of studies included did not separate calculation and fluency

55

tasks, there is additional research that specifically explores mathematical fluency and cognitive processes. Fluency. There is some research that suggests there are specific cognitive processes involved in mathematical fluency separate from calculation tasks. McGlaughlin, Koop, and HoUiday (2005) maintain working memory is related to mathematical fluency. McGlaughlin, et al. (2005) compared college students' scores on the Wechsler Memory Scale-Third Edition (WMS-III) to students' scores on the mathematical fluency test of WJ-III. The results indicated that with college students previously identified as MD their scores were significantly lower on the working memory measures of the WMS-III and the fluency subtest of the WJ-III. In addition, some of the PASS cognitive process may also be related to mathematical fluency. Kroesberger et al. (2003) used the PASS and a multiplication fluency task to assess the cognitive processes of Dutch elementary students identified as MD and non-MD students. Kroesberger et al. found that students with fluency difficulties had significantly lower scores in Planning, Attention and Successive processing areas. Additionally, in the previously mentioned Fuchs' et al. (2005) study the authors found phonological processing and attention were unique predictors of elementary students' fluency on a timed one-minute addition fact measure. The literature suggests there may be specific cognitive processes involved in mathematical calculation and fluency. Research indicates that, attention, working memory, short-term memory, long-term or semantic memory, phonological processing, and certain PASS processes (Planning; Attention; Successive) may all play a role in mathematical calculation and fluency. The research however, often fails to separate out

56

the cognitive processes in specific calculation and fluency tasks. The following section will look at the specific cognitive processes involved in mathematical word problems. Word Problems Some authors identify mathematical word problems as mathematical problems set in a real world applicable form requiring significant cognitive demands (Garderen & Montague, 2003). Solving word problems necessitates students to purposefully use knowledge and skills, and apply them to mathematical situations (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003). To be skilled at solving word problems students need to be able to comprehend what they read, convert what they have read into equations, and apply metacognition to obtain a solution (Geary, 1996). These skills involve considerable cognitive demands and may be more difficult for some children. The literature suggests that the psychological processes involved in solving word problems are: 1) Attention; 2) Working memory; 3) Short-term memory 4) Phonological processing. The following subsection will discuss the cognitive processes used in mathematical word problems. Attention appears to play a role in solving word problems. Fuchs et al. (2006) studied the relationship between, simple arithmetic story problems and the attentional ratings of third grade students. Fuchs et al. (2006) using path analysis identified that attention was significantly correlated to third grade students' ability to solve arithmetic word problems. The results of this study confirmed previous research by Fuchs' et al. (2005). The Fuchs et al. (2005) study used a similar teacher attentional rating scale and story problems with first grade students. This time using multiple regression analysis, the authors' found that attention was a significant predictor of first graders end of school year

57

story problem accuracy. It also appears that working memory may play a role in the solution of word problems. Research suggests that working memory may be an important facet in children's ability to solve word problems. Similar to working memory's relationship to calculation and fluency tasks there is some disagreement regarding which particular aspect of working memory (visual-spatial; phonological loop; executive; episodic buffer) plays the most important role. Fuchs et al. (2005) compared the Listening-Recall subtest of the Memory Test Battery for Children with story problems. In this study, working memory was significantly related to the story problem solving ability of first grade students (Fuchs et al., 2005). Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger (2004) also propose working memory may play a role in the ability of students to solve mathematical word problems. In a study of elementary students in grades first though third, Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger found that working memory contributed 30% of the variance in students' ability to solve mathematical word problems. Swanson (2006) investigated working memory in those same students one year later. Swanson used tasks the author suggest measure visualspatial working memory (matrix tasks; mapping tasks and direction tasks) and the executive component of working memory (listening span, semantic association, digit/sentence span and backward digit span). Swanson (2006) found executive function tasks were the only tasks that predicted students' performance on word problems. Swanson (2006) contradicts earlier work by Swanson (2004), and Swanson and SachseLee (2001). Using identical tests of working memory (both visual-spatial and executive) both studies identified that the visual-spatial component of working memory was a

58

unique predictor of 8 and 11 year-old students' solution accuracy on mathematical word problems (Swanson, 2004; Swanson and Sachse-Lee, 2001). The role of short-term memory in the solution of word problems is also unclear. The literature is not clear on the relationship between mathematical word problems and short-term memory. Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger (2004) compared 8 and 11 year-old students' short-term working memory, using the Digit Span subtest of the WISC-III, and a pseudo-word span task, to the students' ability to solve word problems. Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger found that short-term memory was a significant predictor of solution accuracy on word problems. The use of the backward digit span element of the WISC-III (as a measure of short-term memory) may be inappropriate because it requires the subject to mentally reverse digits. Mental reversal is a task more often associated with working memory. Passolunghi and Siegel (2001) also found a relationship between the solution of word problems and short-term memory. Passolunghi and Siegel investigated fourth graders differentiated as poor problem solvers and good problem solvers. The authors used short-term memory tasks such as the Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligences Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) and an author constructed word span task. Passolunghi and Siegel found poorer problem solvers had significantly lower scores on the combined forward and backward digit span subtest of the WISC-R. As noted previously however, involving the Digit Span backward subtest of the WISC-R subtest may reduce the clarity regarding the role of short-term memory. Some research suggests that phonological processing may play a role in solving word problems.

59

The literature regarding the role of phonological processing and word problems is nebulous. In the Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger (2004) study, the authors found a relationship between phonological processing and the solution accuracy of mathematical word problems. Swanson and Beebe-Frankenberger compared scores across the combined phonological measures of phonemic deletion, phonologic fluency, and pseudo words to a set of mathematical story problems. The authors found that phonological processing was significantly correlated to first, second and third grade elementary students' accuracy in word problem solving. However, in the final hierarchical regression model that included a reading factor, phonological processing was not a significant predictor of the solution accuracy of word problems. The reading factor included tasks such as word recognition, real-word fluency, rapid letter naming and reading comprehension. Swanson's and Beebe-Frankenberger's results were confirmed in a more recent Swanson (2006) study. Comparing the same group of students one year later, Swanson found that phonological processing measured by the combined score on a pseudo word task and a phonemic deletion task was significantly correlated to the accuracy of word problems. When a reading factor that included measures of real word fluency, word recognition, and reading comprehension were included in the final model, phonological processing was not a significant predictor of accurate word problem solving. The results are similar to the Fuchs et al. (2005) study. Fuchs et al. found that phonological processes (measured by sound matching and rapid digit naming tasks of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing) were significantly correlated to first graders ability to accurately solve mathematical word problems. When the data was analyzed in a multiple regression, phonological processing was not a significant predictor

60

of accurate word problems solving. The literature suggests that while phonological processing appears to be related to solving mathematical word problems some other cognitive process may influence its ability to be a predictor. The research while not always clear suggests there are specific cognitive processes involved in the solution of mathematical word problems. The literature maintains attention, working memory, short-term memory and phonological processing may play a role in the solution of word problems. In relationship to the cognitive processes involved in specific applications of mathematics, experts in the field of math and learning disabilities suggest there may be different types of MD in students. The next section will explore this paradigm. Subtypes of Mathematical Disabilities Children with MD are a heterogeneous group (Robinson et al., 2002; Kroesberger, et al., 2003). Some have suggested there may be processing related differences between students with MD (Cornoldi, Venneri, Marconato, Molin and Montinari, 2003; Geary, 2004; Jordan 1995). Perhaps one of the most useful approaches to identifying difference among MD in children is the MD subtype categories proposed by David Geary (1993; 1996; 2004). Geary has conducted significant research in the area of MD, "Although not quantitative analysis, one of the most comprehensive syntheses of the cognitive literature on MD was conducted by Geary" (Swanson & Jerman, 2006, p. 249). Geary (1993; 1996; 2004) alone and with others (Geary and Hoard, 2003) proposed that MD could be divided into three specific subtypes of disabilities: 1) Procedural; 2) Semantic Memory; 3) Visual-spatial. The procedural MD subtype is identified in students who use less mature mathematical procedures (i.e. finger counting in upper elementary grades), exhibit

61

frequent procedural errors and have sequencing difficulties (Geary, 2004). Students with the semantic memory MD subtype have difficulty with the retrieval of mathematical facts from long-term memory (LTM) and produce a significant number of errors when facts are retrieved from LTM (Geary, 2004). This subtype and its inability to retrieve facts from LTM may bear marked similarity to individuals with reading disabilities, which also often have LTM retrieval difficulties (Geary, 2004). The final MD subtype, identified by Geary (2004), is the visual-spatial subtype. Students with a math disability in the visualspatial subtype may demonstrate difficulties with the application and comprehension of information that is presented spatially (geometry problems and mathematical word problems) (Geary, 2004). Summary The literature suggests there are a substantial number of students that struggle with mathematics in public schools. The federal government and the majority of states define a disability in mathematics as a disorder in a basic psychological process. There is a disagreement in the literature and with SEAs on how to identify a MD among students. Research supports that there are specific psychological processes involved in calculation and fluency tasks (phonological processing, working memory, long-term memory, attention and the PASS cognitive processes) and mathematical word problems (attention, working memory, short-term memory and phonological processing). Research suggests there may be three specific subtypes of MD (procedural, semantic memory, and visual spatial). The literature supports working memory is an important cognitive process used in mathematical thinking (Geary, 2004; Floyd, et al. 2003; Fuchs et al., 2005; McLean &

62

Hitch, 1999; Swanson, 2006; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). One sub-process of working memory involved with mathematical calculation, mathematical fluency and mathematical word problems is visual-spatial processing (Assel, et al., 2003; Augustyniak, Murphy, and Phillip, 2005; Floyd, et al. 2003; Fuchs, et al., 2005; Geary, 2004; Hegarty and Kozhevnikov, 1999; Jordan, et al, 2003; Swanson, 2004; Swanson and Sachse-Lee, 2001; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Some have suggested that the role of visual-spatial processing in mathematical thinking has not yet been fully explored and further research is needed (Floyd, et al. 2003; Forest, 2004; Fuchs, et al., 2005; Garderen & Montague, 2003; Geary, 1993; Geary, 1996; Geary 2004; Mazzocco & Meyers, 2003; Reuhkala, 2001). Given that the literature supports further investigation into the importance of visual-spatial processing and mathematical thinking the next section will look specifically at visual-spatial processing and mathematics. Visual-Spatial Processing and Mathematics Geary (1993; 1996; 2004), Jordan (1995) and Cornoldi et al. (2003) have identified a subtype of student with MD that has a specific deficit in visual-spatial processing. An individual with a visual-spatial processing MD subtype exhibits deficits in representing both numerical and other forms of information that are mathematically based (Geary, 2004). Additionally, individuals identified with this subtype often are unable to correctly conceptualize mathematical concepts when exposed to information that is spatially represented (Geary, 2004). Some specific skill deficits students in this category demonstrate are discrimination difficulties between letters that look alike, incorrectly transposing shapes and figures, improper number alignment in mathematical

63

problems, poor estimation skills and difficulty with word problems (Assel, et al, 2003; Augustyniak, Murphy, and Phillip, 2005; Geary, 2004; Jordan, et al., 2003). The next section will discuss the relationship between mathematics and visual-spatial processing. Visual-Spatial Processing's Relationship to Mathematics Visual-spatial processing has been identified as a foundational skill to the understanding and development of basic mathematical skills, and a pathway to more efficient problems solving (Assel, et al., 2003; Augustynaik, et al., 2005). Assel, et al. (2003) tested children on visual-spatial processing and mathematical ability at 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 years of age. The authors compared the visual-spatial subtests of the Stanford Binet- IV (SB-IV) (Pattern Analysis, Copying) to the Calculation subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Academic Achievement- Revised (WJ-R) and the Quantitative Reasoning subtest of the SB-IV. Assel et al.'s findings suggest a link between the early visual-spatial processing at two and three years of age and the mathematical ability of children at eight years old. Assel et al. also states the influential nature of visual-spatial processing was not surprising given the study's math tasks included word problems (Quantitative Reasoning). Finally, Assel et al. posits word problems are highly related to visual-spatial skills in comparison to basic calculation skills. Visual-spatial processing also appears to be an important factor in the development of such basic skills as cardinality. Cardinality is the understanding the total number of items in a set is equivalent to the last number in the count (Carr & Hettinger, 2003). Ansari, et al. (2003) identified a relationship between visual-spatial processing and cardinality in children's normal mathematical development. Ansari, et al. in their study investigated children identified as having Williams Syndrome (WS), a disorder that

64

exhibits a profile of substantial impairment in non-verbal ability with intact verbal abilities. The authors' found in comparison to the Williams Syndrome group, a control group's visual-spatial processing rather than their language ability was a greater predictor of their understanding of cardinality when controlling for age (Ansari, et al., 2003). The results suggest a deficit in visual-spatial processing is related to a deficit in understanding cardinality (Ansari et al, 2003). Research has also been conducted with older children identifying a link between visual-spatial processing and mathematics. Reuhkala (2001) used 15-16 year old high school freshman in her study of visual-spatial processing and mathematics. Reuhkala investigated the relationship between three visual-spatial tasks (static, dynamic and mental rotation) and students' scores on a mathematical achievement test. Finally, Reuhkala found that visual-spatial processing correlated significantly with the students' scores on a test of mathematical achievement. There also appears to be a specific connection between poor visual-spatial processing and MD. Research suggests there is a link between students with disabilities in mathematics and less developed visual-spatial processing (Busse, et al., 2003). There is however, a limited amount of research in this area and further research is suggested (Fuchs, 2005; Geary. 1993; Mazzocco & Meyers, 2003; Reuhkala, 2001). Reuhkala (2001) determined that visual-spatial processing was related to the mathematical skill levels of 15-16 year old students. Using tasks such as a matrix, modified block tapping and mental rotation, Reuhkala found a significant relationship between students that demonstrate low ability in mathematics (MD) and poor visual-spatial processing. A link between MD and less developed visual-spatial processing has also been found with college level students. McGlaughlin, et al. (2005) compared college students identified as

65

MD and non-MD. College students identified with MD exhibited more pronounced visual-spatial difficulties than non-MD students (McGlaughlin, et al, 2005). The results of the study identified significantly lower Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III) Performance IQ subtests scores in the MD group compared to the non-MD group (McGlaughlin, et al., 2005). McGlaughlin, et al. contends that MD students' lower Performance IQ scores indicated a deficient in visual-spatial processing. There is also research suggesting visual-spatial skills relationship to mathematical functioning is less clear. Bull et al's (1999) investigation assessed visual-spatial skills using the Corsi Blocks task. The authors did not find an association between mathematical ability and the visual-spatial processing in a group of 7-year-old children. The authors however, admit the potential weaknesses of their visual-spatial measure. Bull et al. posits that visualspatial tasks not involving a memory-span requirement (such as the Corsi Blocks) may provide conclusive support for a linkage between visual-spatial processing and mathematics. Other researchers have suggested a reason that Bull et al. did not find a relationship may be due to the age of the participants in the study (Reuhkala, 2001). Reuhkala (2001) suggests that because the working memory capacities of students 7 years of age or younger have yet to develop completely, it could affect the measurement of the interaction between the use of working memory and mathematics. Additional alternative evidence for a relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematics comes from Lee, Ng, Ng, & Lim, (2004). Lee et al. investigated central executive functions (phonological loop and visual-spatial sketchpad) and mathematical performance with 10-year-old students from Singapore. Lee et al. found that neither the

66

visual-spatial sketchpad nor the phonological loop contributed to mathematical performance. Finally, Lee et al. implies overall executive functioning combining elements of both the visual-spatial sketchpad and the phonological loop are the contributing factors to mathematical performance, not one element in isolation (Lee et al, 2004) The literature suggests there may be a relationship between the development of mathematical skills and visual-spatial processing. Research also suggests a link between poor visual-spatial processing and students with MD. Complete understanding of the relationship between mathematics and visual-spatial processing requires clear conceptualization of visual-spatial processing. The next section will explore visual-spatial processing. Visual-Spatial Processing Visual-spatial processing has been defined as "The ability to generate, retain, retrieve and transform well-structured visual images "(Lohman, 1994, p. 1000). The main purpose of this sub-section is to coalesce what the literature reports about the term visualspatial and the concept of visual-spatial processing. The discussion will address the visual-spatial sketchpad as a component of working memory. The section will continue by looking at age and gender differences in regards to visual-spatial processing. It will conclude with discussing the neuropsychological aspects of visual-spatial processing. Constructs of visual-spatial working memory Visual-spatial processing, is believed to be an element of the psychological process of working memory. Working memory is the cognitive process that allows one to keep information at the forefront of one's thoughts while mentally manipulating that

67

information (Geary, 1996). The most frequently identified theory of working memory in the literature, is a theory conceptualized by Alan Baddeley (Fisk & Sharp, 2003; Geary, 2004; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004; Reuhkala, 2001; Sholl & Fraone, 2004; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004) Baddeley's theory separates working memory into four fractional parts central executive, phonological loop, visual-spatial sketchpad and episodic buffer (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). Conceptualizing visual-spatial processing requires a discussion of Baddeley's model in its totality. The first component of Baddely's theory is the central executive system. The central executive is a malleable system that maintains the responsibility for the regulation of such processes as efficiency in multiple cognitive tasks, the vacillation among tasks or strategies for retrieval, and the inhibition of and attention to incoming information (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The central executive is aided by two main assisting systems the phonological loop and the visual-spatial sketchpad (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). More recently a third assisting system has been identified by Baddeley, the episodic buffer (Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The phonological loop is a temporary storage area that holds auditorialy-based or speechbased information (Baddeley, 1996).The most recent component added by Baddeley in 2000, the episodic buffer, integrates information from the components of working memory and long-term memory with multidimensional codes (Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). The visual-spatial sketchpad is responsible for processing visual-spatial information (Reuhkala, 2001).

68

Visual-Spatial Sketchpad The visual-spatial sketchpad is a highly organized element of working memory specializing in the maintaining and processing of information that demonstrates visual or spatial characteristics (Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). According to Baddeley's model the sketchpad is a limited duration storage center of mental representations (i.e. visualspatial properties of a physical stimulus) that has been formed from visual input or retrieval from long term memory (Sholl, & Fraone, 2004). Most often visual-spatial information that is temporarily stored in the visual-spatial sketchpad is used to solve problems of a spatial nature such as anticipating spatial transformations, mental rearrangement of items and visualizing the relationship of parts to a whole (Sholl & Fraone, 2004). Within the visual-spatial systems, both visual and spatial aspects are strongly threaded together; however, it has been hypothesized that within the visual-spatial system the visual and spatial aspects are processed differently (Baddeley, 1996; Richardson & Vecchi, 2002; Sholl & Fraone, 2004). Sholl and Fraone (2004) and Baddeley (1996) maintain that the evidence for this separate, but intertwined processing comes from studies that use interference tasks to isolate each processing construct. Sholl and Fraone (2004) posit that a task such as non-sighted tapping of the four corners of a square grid during a visual-spatial assessment interferes with spatial ability, but does not interfere with temporary visual storage. Conversely, tasks that utilize visual processes, such as observing dot patterns or looking at abstract paintings, provide interference with visual processing, but not with spatial processing (Sholl and Fraone, 2004). Baddeley (1996) believes evidence for this separation can be found in neuropsychological studies that

69

show patients with a disruption of spatial imaging skills yet largely intact and unaffected visual description ability. The literature also suggests there are two types of visual-spatial processing, passive and active (Richardson & Vecchi, 2002; Reuhkala, 2001; Vecchi & Cornoldi, 1999). Active processing involves taking in visual-spatial information while transforming, manipulating or utilizing that information (Vecchi & Cornoldi 1999). Passive visual-spatial processing requires retaining information that requires no manipulation or modification (Vecchi & Cornoldi, 1999). Evidence for this differentiation between passive and active visual-spatial memory comes from the evaluation of visual-spatial processing differences in aging adults. The studies suggest active visual-spatial processing deteriorates during the aging process, while passive visual-spatial processing remains largely intact. Vecchi and Cornoldi (1999) investigated different aged adults (averaged ages 22, 66 and 76) utilizing assessments that tapped both passive visual spatial memory (tasks that only required short-term recall of visual-spatial information) and active tasks (tasks that required mental rotation and/or visualization). Vecchi and Cornoldi found there were distinct differences in passive and active assessments among the age groups. Vecchi and Cornoldi results indicated there was a significant decline in active visual-spatial processing in the older subjects, providing support for the separation of passive and active visual-spatial processes. The decline in active visual-spatial tasks was further confirmed by Richardson and Vecchi (2002). Richard and Vecchi used a jigsaw-puzzle imagery task they suggest taps active visualspatial memory. Once again using three varying age groupings young adults (18-27), old adults (60-75) and older adults (75-90) they found a significant decline in active visual-

70

spatial processing in the older population (60-90) in comparison to the younger population (18-27). Gender and Cultural Differences in Visual-Spatial Processing In addition to differences in ages, there may be gender differences and possibly cultural differences in visual-spatial processing. Both Geary (1996) and Richardson and Vecchi (2002) in their analysis of literature on visual-spatial processing found evidence to suggest that there are gender differences in visual-spatial tasks. The difference between male and female visual-spatial processing may be a result of both biologically based and environmentally based differences (Geary, 1996; Richardson & Vecchi, 2002). However, the authors differ in regards to a specific superiority of one gender to the other. Geary (1996) maintains that literature favors a male superiority in regards to visual-spatial processing. Richardson and Vecchi (2002) maintain the literature supports that males seem to be better at active visual-spatial tasks that require mental rotation or transformation of images; however, there appears to be little difference in passive visualspatial tasks between males and females. In addition to gender differences, there may be cultural differences in visual-spatial processing primarily as a function of educational experience and type of measure (Rosselli & Ardila, 2003). Rosselli and Ardila (2003) stress that caution should be used in utilizing nonverbal measures (such as visual-spatial assessments) with different cultural groups. Differences in visual-spatial measures among cultures may be due to a combination of factors, including the interaction of brain organization, cultural experience and learning/education (Rosselli & Ardila, 2003). Rosselli and Ardila suggest tests of visual-spatial processing may be lower or higher among dissimilar cultures and that researchers need to be cognizant that those differences

71

will occur. The final subsection will identify relevant neuropsychological aspects of visual-spatial processing. Neuropsychology and Visual-Spatial Processing It is important in understanding visual-spatial processing to have a conceptualization of its relationship to neuropsychological functioning. Most researchers agree that there is a clear link between the right hemisphere and visual-spatial processing (Cornoldi, Venneri, Marconato, Molin & Montinari 2003; Geary, 1993; Harnadeck & Rourke, 1994; Morris & Parslow, 2004; Young & Ratcliff, 1983). That is not to say that visual-spatial functioning occurs in isolation in the right hemisphere, rather the right hemisphere's contribution is more evident in complex visual-spatial tasks (Young & Ratcliff, 1983). Less complex visual-spatial tasks are spread relatively moderately between the two hemispheres (Young & Ratcliff, 1983). Support for the right hemispheric localization of visual-spatial processing comes from studies that have used patients with right and left hemispheric dysfunction or lesions. Consistently researchers have found that individuals with right hemispheric dysfunction or lesions show severe deficits in visual-spatial functions (Cornoldi, et al., 2003). Further research into the neuro cognitive components of working memory, using computational modules, reveals that the hippocampus is the main brain structure significantly involved with visual-spatial functioning (Morris & Parslow, 2004). More specifically the parietal cortex is involved in spatial aspects and the inferotemproal area is involved in the visual processing aspects (Morris & Parslow, 2004).

72

Summary The research indicates there may be a relationship between the development of mathematical skills and visual-spatial processing. In addition, the literature suggests a link between poor visual-spatial processing and students with MD. Visual-spatial processing is a subpart of the larger cognitive process of working memory. Literature suggests visual-spatial processing is controlled or regulated by the central executive system. The literature also suggests visual and spatial information are processed separately; however when information is recalled it is produced as a gestalt. Researchers have identified that visual-spatial processing can be further broken down in to passive and active processes. In addition, there are differences in visual-spatial processing in regards to age, gender and culture. Finally, visual-spatial functioning is mainly a right hemisphere activity that involves the hippocampus, the parietal cortex and inferotemproal areas of the brain. A relatively recent theory of intelligence provides another mode towards conceptualizing visual-spatial processing and how it is assessed. Modern Intelligence Theory and Assessing Visual-Spatial Processing There is a disagreement in the literature regarding how visual-spatial processing is assessed (see table 2.1). The disagreement stems from which aspects of visual-spatial processing are measured (Proctor, Floyd, & Shaver, 2005). According to McGrew (2005) generally, tasks that are believed to measure visual-spatial possessing involve figural or geometric structures that necessitate the visual recognition and manipulation of" visual shapes, forms, or images, and/or tasks that require or maintain spatial orientation with regard to objects that may change or move through space" (McGrew, 2005 p. 152). Carroll (1993) in his work with the factor analysis of cognitive abilities may provide the

73

most comprehensive review of measures of visual-spatial processing. Understanding Carroll's work with visual-spatial processing begins with understanding modern intelligence theory. Table 2.1 Tasks used to measure visual-spatial processing in the current literature Task Number of studies Block Tapping Tasks 4 Block Design or Block Construction Task Matrix Tasks Map, Direction or Route Finding Tasks Mental Rotation Tasks Interview or Rating Scale Jigsaw Puzzle Tasks Pattern Construction/ Analysis Copying Figures or Shapes 5 8 8 3 4 2 2 3

74

Fluid Intelligenc e(Qf)

Crystallize d Intelligenc

ShortTerm Memory

Visual Processing (Gv)

Auditory Processing (Ga)

Long-term Retrieval & Storage

Processing Speed
(Gs)

Reading and Writing (Grw) i

Quantitative Knowledge (Gq)

Decision/Reaction Time (Gt)

(Glr)

12.
1. General Sequential 1. Language Development

Reasoning
(RG) 2. Induction

(LD)
2. Lexical Knowledge (VL) 3. Listening Ability (LS) 4. Verbal Information (KO) 5. Culture Information (K2) 6. Communication Ability (CM) 7. Oral Production / Fluency (OP) 8. Grammatical Sensitivity (MY) 9. ForeignLanguage Proficiency (KL) 10. ForeignLanguage Aptitude (LA) 11. Science Information (Kl) 12. Geography Achievement (A5)

0)
3. Quantitative Reasoning (QR) 4. Piagetian Reasoning (RP) 5. Speed of Reasoning (RE)

1. Memory Span (MS) 2. Working Memory (WM)

1. Visualization (VZ)

2. Spatial
Relations (SR) 3. Closure Speed (CS) 4. Flexibility of Closure (CF) 5. Visual Memory (MV) 6. Spatial Scanning (SS) 7. Serial Perception Integration (pi) 8. Length Estimation (LE) 9. Perceptual Illusions $L) 10. Perceptual Alterations (PN) 11. Imagery (IM> 12. Perceptual Speed fPSl

1. Phonetic Coding (Analysis and Synthesis) (PC) 2. Speech Sound Discrimination (US) 3. Resistance to Auditory Distortion (UR) 4. Memory for Sound Patterns (UM) 5. General Sound Discrimination (U3) 6. Temporal Tracking (UK) 7. Musical Discrimination and Judgment (Ul, U9) 8. Maintaining and Judging Rhythm (U8) 9. Sound Intensity/ Duration Discrimination (U6) 10. Sound Frequency Discrimination (U5) 11. Hearing and Speech Threshold (UA, UT, UU) 12. Absolute Pitch (UP) 13. Sound Localization (UL)

2.

HE
1. Associative Memory (MA) 2. Meaningful Memory (MM) 3. Free-recall Memory (M6) 4. Ideational Fluency (FI) 5. Expressional Fluency (FE) 6. Naming Facility (NA) 7. Word Fluency (FW) 8. Figural Fluency (FF) 9. Figural Flexibility (FX) 10. Sensitivity to Problems (SP) 11. Originality/ Creativity (FO) 12. Learning Abilities (Ll) 13. Associative Fluency (FA) 1. Perceptual Speed (P)
1 a. Partem recognition (Ppr) lh. Scanning (Ps) lc. Memory (Pm) Id. Complex

i i
1. Mathematical Knowledge (KM) 2. Mathematical Achievement (MA) 1. Simple Reaction Time (Rl) 2. Choice Reaction Time (R2) 3. Semantic Processing Speed (R4) 4. Mental Comparison Speed (R7) 5. Inspection Time (IT) 6. Correct Decision Speed (CDS)

(Pc) 2. Rate of Test Taking (R9) 3. Number Facility (N) 4. Speed of Reasoning (RE)

1. Reading Decoding (RD) 2. Reading Comprdiension (RC) 3. Verbal Language Comp reh en s ion (V) 4. Cloze Ability (CZ) 5. Spelling Ability (CZ) 6. Writing Ability (WA) 7. English Use Knowledge (EU) 8. Reading Speed (RS) 9. Writing (WS)

Figure 2.1. CHC Broad and Narrow Cognitive abilities were adapted from Carroll (1993), McGrew (2005), and Alfanso, Flanagan, and Radwan, (2005). Boldface type indicates Narrow Cognitive abilities with some disagreement on placement among the three authors.

* McGrew (2005) in his work on the CHC theory has added the following Broad Cognitive abilities: 1. General knowledge (Gkn) 2. Psychomotor abilities (Gp) 3. Olfactory abilities (Go) 4. Tactile abilities (Gh) 5. Kinesthetic abilities (Gk) Because these are less known cognitive abilities and are not often cited in the literature they were not included in the figure.

75

CHC Theory The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence combines the work of Raymond Cattell, John Horn and John Carroll (Alfonso, Flanagan & Radwan, 2005; McGrew, 2005). CHC theory has been influential with modern measurements of cognitive abilities, "The CHC theory is the most comprehensive and empirically supported psychometric theory of the structure of cognitive and academic abilities to date" (Alfonzo et al., 2005 p. 185). Validation of the CHC theory has come from factor analytical studies (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). The CHC theory of intelligence has a three tiered structure that consists of a general factor of intelligence or "g", 10 broad factors of intelligence, and approximately 70 narrow factors of intelligence (see Figure 2.1 for a diagram of the CHC Theory of Intelligence) ( Sattler, 2001; Evans, Floyd, McGrew, & Leforgee 2002; McGrew, 2005). The following section will explore visualspatial processing and CHC theory. Visual-Spatial Processing and CHC Theory In the literature, visual-spatial processing and the Visual Processing (Gv) broad cognitive ability of the CHC theory are consistently treated as the same construct (Alfonzo et al., 2005; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Evans et al., 2002; Floyd, et al. 2003; McGrew, 2005; Osmon, Smerz, Braun, & Plambeck, 2006; Proctor et al., 2005). In addition, tests that purport to measure Gv interchangeably use visual-spatial processing and Gv to identify this cognitive ability (Roid, 2003a). Further support for equivalence of the Gv and visual-spatial processing terms comes from an analysis of the narrow Gv cognitive abilities identified by Carroll (1993). The Gv narrow cognitive abilities consist of measures of both visual components and spatial components. The list of narrow

76

cognitive abilities suggests that terminology that includes visual and spatial elements is equitable to Gv. The Gv area consists of a collection of processes that involve production, mentally holding, recalling, and the manipulation of visual images (McGrew, 2005). Under the Gv domain, there are approximately 12 narrow cognitive abilities including: 1) Visualization (VZ); 2) Spatial relations (SR); 3) Closure speed (CS); 4) Closure flexibility (CF); 5) Visual memory (MV); 6) Spatial scanning (SS); 7) Serial perception integration (PI); 8) Length estimation (LE); 9) Perceptual illusions (IL); 10) Perceptual alterations (PN); 11) Imagery (IM); 12) Perceptual Speed (PS) (Carroll. 1993; Lohman, 1994; McGrew, 2005; Sattler, 2001). The next section will explore each of these narrow cognitive abilities and their measures. Visualization (VZ). VZ is the ability to simultaneously view a spatial construct, compare it to another spatial construct, often while mentally rotating the image in a two or three-dimensional field (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Tests that are believed to measure this narrow cognitive ability are assembly tasks such as the Block Design and Object Assembly tasks of the Wechsler series and the From Board tasks and Form Patterns tasks of the Stanford-Binet series (Carroll, 1993; G. H. Roid, personal communication, November, 7 2006; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Other measures of this factor include assembly type tasks, block counting tasks, block rotation tasks, paper folding tasks, surface development tasks, and figural rotation tasks (Carroll, 1993; Lohman, 1994). Spatial relations (SR). SR is the rapid perception and manipulation of visual stimuli and can also be the maintenance or orientation of objects in space (Carroll, 1993 McGrew, 2005). SR is differentiated from VZ by its emphasis on fluency (McGrew,

77

2005). Tasks that measure SR include irregular card comparisons, and cube comparison tasks (Carroll, 1993; Lohman, 1994). Sattler and Dumont (2004) suggest that the Block Design subtest of the Wechsler intelligence assessment series may also be a measure of SR. Closure speed (CS). CS is the rapid visual recognition of an incomplete object, form or pattern without prior knowledge of the form, when it is presented in a masked way (Carroll, 1993 McGrew, 2005). Carroll (1993) contends that there are four elements of a CS measure: 1) The stimuli are obscured in some manner; 2) The stimuli are well known; 3) The subject is asked to name the stimuli; 4) The subject's response is evaluated for efficiency. Some tasks that are said to measure CS include the Street Gestalt Completion test and tasks that included concealed letters, numbers or figures. Sattler and Dumont (2004) state the Object Assembly task of the Wechsler intelligence test series may be a measure of CS. Closure flexibility (CF). CF is the efficient visual recognition of an imbedded and obscured object or pattern with prior knowledge of the pattern or object (Carroll, 1993; Lohman, 1994; McGrew, 2005). Four important elements of measures of CF are: 1) The stimulus is "geometrically camouflaged" 2) The stimuli that is masked is a design based on known shapes; 3) The subject has prior knowledge of the design; 4) The test is time sensitive (Carroll, 1993). Tasks that measure CF include tests that have hidden or embedded figures, designs or patterns (Carroll, 1993). Visual memory (MV). MV is the ability to recognize or recall a visual stimulus after a brief exposure (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Some disagreement on MV as a Gv narrow cognitive ability exists. Carroll (1993) believes that MV is more aptly placed

78

in the domain of Memory and Learning due to the memory components involved. McGrew (2005) believes MV to be a Gv measure due to the visual elements involved. Tasks that measure MV involve maps, pictures, designs or shapes (Carroll, 1993). Most often subjects are briefly exposed to the stimuli and then must recall or redraw the stimuli. Sattler (2001) implies that the Memory for Objects subtest of the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition may be a measure of MV. Spatial scanning (SS). SS involves the ability to efficiently visually identify or follow a path through a complicated visual field (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Carroll (1993) reports that little evidence for this factor exists in his analysis of data on Gv measures. Some have suggested that tasks that involve maze tracing or planning and following a route on a two dimensional map may measure this ability (Carroll, 1993). Sattler, (2001) suggests that the Mazes subtest in the Wechsler intelligence assessment series may measure this Gv component. Serial perception integration (PI). PI is the ability to name a pattern (visual or pictorial in nature) rapidly presented in ordered and segmented parts (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Carroll (1993) offers few examples of measures of PI. Carroll did find that a gestalt completion task loaded on this factor. Further research regarding this factor may now be possible due to technological advances (Carroll, 1993). Length estimation (LE). LE is the unaided estimation or comparison of lengths or distances (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). LE assessment can be based on liner segment comparison or path length estimation (Carroll, 1993). Carroll (1993) states there is not a preponderance of evidence from database analysis that LE is a identifiable factor in Gv.

79

Tasks that may measure LE include length discrimination, length estimation, and comparison and proximity analysis of lines and points (Carroll, 1993). Perceptual illusions (IL). IL involves the ability to inhibit the interference of the inconsequential aspects of geometric shapes (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Carroll (1993) and McGrew (2005) disagree on the existence of IL. McGrew believes IL to be an important narrow ability of Gv. Carroll (1993) notes that the data supporting IL is limited and implies the idea that IL as a narrow cognitive ability is not conclusive. Researchers have suggested tasks that measure IL may include the estimation, contrasting, shape identification or direction identification of illusions (Carroll, 1993). Perceptual alterations (PN). PN is the accuracy and efficiency in vacillation between different visual stimuli (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). McGrew (2005) suggests that PN is an important component of Gv. Carroll (1993) however, in his analysis of data on Gv notes that PN did not correlate with any other measure of perceptual abilities, suggesting separation from other Gv measures. Carroll suggests that PN measurement tasks involve mental alternations of stimuli under timed conditions. Imagery (IM). IM is the mental depiction or manipulation of a stimulus that is in a spatial abstract figure (Carroll, 1993; McGrew, 2005). Researchers suggest that image processing may play a significant role in solving spatially based tasks, and is separate from SR and VZ factors (Carroll, 1993). Carroll (1993) cautions that existence of this factor is equivocal because the datasets he explored did not consistently substantiate IM as a factor. Tasks that may measure IM require the subject to visually manipulate an object and compare it to other similar non-manipulated objects (Carroll, 1993).

80

Perceptual Speed (PS). PS is the efficacy in identifying an unmasked pattern in isolation or comparing more than one unmasked pattern presented in a visual field (Carroll, 1993). There is some disagreement where PS should fall as a narrow cognitive ability. McGrew (2005) suggests that PS is best described as a narrow ability in the broad cognitive ability of Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs). Carroll (1993) contends that PS is better defined as a Gv narrow ability. Carroll maintains there are two types of tests that may measure PS: 1) Tests that require efficiency in identifying visual stimuli in a display without distracters; 2) Tests that require efficient comparison of stimuli in a broad or narrow display. Sattler and Dumont (2004) suggest that the Cancellation and Symbol Search subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition may be measures of PS. Recent developments in intelligence assessment have attempted to more completely align IQ measures with the CHC Theory of intelligence. This alignment has meant improved attempts to measure board and narrow CHC abilities such as Gv or visual-spatial processing. In 2003, the two most well known measures of child intelligence were revised, the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) (Roid, 2003) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISCIV) (Wechsler, 2003). It is implied that because the SB5 and the WISC-IV are more in line with CHC theory that their visual-spatial measures will be grounded in one or more of the 12 narrow Gv cognitive abilities The next section will discuss the SB5 and WISCIV as measures of visual-spatial processing.

81

Table 2.2 Subtests and Domain Construction of the SB5 Full Scale IQ Domain Factor Subtest Fluid Object Series/Matrices Reasoning Procedural Knowledge Nonverbal Knowledge Picture Absurdities Quantitative Quantitative Reasoning Reasoning Visual-Spatial Form Board Processing Form Patterns Working Delayed Response Memory Block Span Domain Factor Subtest Early Reasoning Fluid Verbal Absurdities Reasoning Verbal Analogies Verbal Knowledge Vocabulary Quantitative Quantitative Reasoning Reasoning Visual-Spatial Position and Direction Processing Working Memory for Sentences Memory Last Word Note. Adapted from Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition: Examiners Manual, (p. 50) by G. H. Roid, 2003, Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Stanford-Binet: Fifth Edition The ancestors of the modern Stanford-Binet intelligence scales can be consider the starting point for all modern intelligence assessments. The Stanford-Binet scales have undergone numerous revisions that began with the 1916 American adaptation of the Binet-Simon scales by Lewis Terman (Becker, 2003). The Stanford-Binet scales have continued to evolve from two parallel forms (Form L and From M), to a combined form (Form L-M), followed by the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition in 1986 (Becker, 2003). The most recent revision is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fifth Edition (SB5) authored by Gail H. Roid (Becker, 2003; Roid, 2003a; Roid, 2003b). The

82

SB5 is designed to align closely with modern CHC intelligence theory (Becker, 2003; Melko & Burns, 2005). There is limited research regarding the SB5 factor structure. Additionally, the literature that has been produced on the SB5 factor structure has been mixed. The SB5 is designed around five factors that fall across verbal and non-verbal domains (DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Roid, 2003a). The five factor areas (and their corresponding CHC cognitive ability) are Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Knowledge (Gc), Quantitative Reasoning (Gq), Working Memory (Gsm) and Visual-Spatial Processing (Gv) (DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Roid, 2003a). These factors are measured on both the verbal and non-verbal domains and are combined to construct the Full Scale IQ or a measure of "g" (see table 2.2). Roid (2003a) contends that the results of confirmatory factor analysis support the legitimacy of the five-factor model. Roid's (2003a) confirmatory factor analysis used the SB5 scores of 4,786 subjects across five age groupings (2-5; 6-10; 11-16; 17-50; 51+). The results indicated the five-factor model provided the best fit for the individuals' scores on the SB5 when compared to reduced models (Roid, 2003a). Additionally, Roid maintains that additional support for the five factors comes from cross-battery confirmatory factor analysis with the AnalysisSynthesis, Verbal Comprehension, Spatial Relations, Auditory Memory and the Applied Problems subtests of the WJ-III batteries. Using the same 4,786 subjects across five age groupings, the five-factor model provided the best fit for the individuals' scores on the SB5 (Roid, 2003a). There is alternative factor analytical research that does not support the five-factor model of the SB5. DiStefano and Dombrowski (2006), using both exploratory and confirmatory analysis of the SB5 standardization sample, did not find

83

support for the five factors. DiStefano and Dombrowski suggest that a one-factor model that identifies a general intelligence model or "g", best represents this assessment across the five age groupings. DiStefano and Dombrowski further suggest that while the SB5 may be a good measure of general intelligence there is little support for the validity of the five factors. Although Roid does caution using exploratory factor analysis (such as used by DiStefano and Dombrowski) that does not extract the higher order "g" from the correlations and using large age spans will not allow for the accurate analysis of lowerorder factors. Currently there is a limited amount of non-publisher generated research with the SB5 as a measure of visual-spatial processing. The next area will address the visual-spatial measures of the SB5. Visual-Spatial Measures of the SB 5 The visual-spatial processing factor is identified in the SB5 as "... the ability to see relationships among figural objects, describe or recognize spatial orientation, identify the "whole" among a diverse set of parts and generally see patterns in visual material" (Roid & Pomplun, 2005 p. 328). The visual-spatial measures of the SB5 were constructed through consultation with Dick Woodcock, John Horn and John Carroll all experts in the CHC theory (G. Roid personal communication November 7, 2006). The SB5 visualspatial processing factor consists of a verbal and non-verbal domain. The subtest for the verbal visual-spatial processing domain is the Position and Direction Subtest (PD). The PD subtest requires subjects to ".. .identify common objects and pictures using common visual/spatial terms such as "behind" and "farthest left," explain spatial directions for reaching a pictured destination or indicate direction and position in relation to a reference point" (Roid, 2003b p. 139). The subtest begins at the earliest levels with the subject

84

orientating objects (ball and/or block) into certain positions such as "on", "inside" and "outside" and progresses to more advanced orientation and direction items using terms such as "left", "right" "east" and "west" (Roid, 2003b). The subtest has its roots in the early L, and L-M editions of the Stanford-Binet series (Roid, 2003a). Additionally, Roid (2003a) indicates that the work of Lohman (1994) and Carroll (1993) were influential in the construction of this subtest. Lohman contends that verbal visual-spatial tests that require a subject to create a mental image and answer corresponding questions are representative of real-life usage of visual-spatial processing. However, caution with application of Gv to the SB5 may be warranted. Roid (2003a) while suggesting that this subtest was based on CHC theory and is a measure of Gv, does not suggest which narrow cognitive abilities Position and Direction is said to measure. In addition, in reviewing the work of McGrew (2005) and Carroll (1993) regarding narrow abilities within CHC theory, it is uncertain as to exactly which narrow cognitive ability or abilities are involved in this subtest. The visual-spatial factor of the SB5 also involves subtests in the nonverbal domain. The SB5 nonverbal visual-spatial domain involves different measures at different ability levels. In the early levels of the SB5 (level 1 and level 2) the Form Board is utilized as a measure of nonverbal visual spatial processing. The Form Board task was used with previous editions of the Stanford-Binet scales (Roid, 2003b). The task utilizes a plastic board with three geometric shapes (triangle, square and a circle) recessed into the plastic. The subject uses whole or parts of geometric pieces to construct the circle, square and triangle shapes on the Form Board. The SB5 Form Board task is said to incorporate the broad Gv cognitive ability and the narrow visualization or VZ ability (Carroll, 1993;

85

Roid, 2003b). Upon successful completion of levels one and two, subjects progress to level three. In level three, the nonverbal visual-spatial task changes to Form Patterns. From Patterns is a new visual-spatial task designed by the SB5 test development team (Roid, 2003b). The task involves the construction of recognizable shapes with ten geomantic pieces (triangle, square, circle, rectangle, and parallelogram). Form Patterns was developed after extensive review of previously used visual-spatial measures and stringent field-testing (G. Roid personal communication, November 7, 2006). The task is believed to measure the broad Gv and narrow cognitive ability of visualization or Vz (Carroll, 1993; Roid, 2003a). There appears to be a dearth of supporting research regarding the Gv measures of the SB5. The Stanford-Binet scales have a long history as a measure of intelligence. The Stanford-Binet scales have undergone numerous revisions. The current version the SB5 was designed to be more in line with the current CHC theory of intelligence. The SB5 is composed of five factor scores, Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. The SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing factor consists of verbal (Position and Direction) and non-verbal (Form Board; Form Patterns) domains. Some subtests in the Visual-Spatial Factor have roots in earlier Stanford-Binet scales (Form Board; Position and Direction), while Form Patterns is more recently designed (Roid, 2003a). There appears to be a dearth of research validating the use of the newly developed Visual-Spatial factor of the SB5 as a measure of visualspatial processing. The lack of research suggests that further research is warranted to further understand this factor of the SB5. The next section will look at the recently revised WISC-IV and the subtests said to measure visual-spatial ability.

86

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and its predecessor the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) may be the most widely utilized and researched measures of children's intelligence (Zhu & Weiss, 2005). The original Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was published in 1949 and was a downward adaptation of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 2003b). Since its inception in 1949, the tests have undergone several revisions in 1974 and again in 1991. The current revision, the WISC-IV published in 2003, was undertaken to more accurately align the test with current intelligence theory, strengthen psychometrics, increase overall applicability of the instrument, and ease evaluator usage of the instrument (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Some researchers contend however, that there is a lack of understanding in what "current intelligence theory" the WISC-IV is more closely aligned to (Keith et al, 2006).

87

Table 2.3 Index and Subtests of the WISC-IV that combine to form the Full Scale IQ Index Subtests Similarities Verbal Comprehension Vocabulary Comprehension Information (supplemental) Word Reasoning (supplemental) Block Design Perceptual Reasoning Picture Concepts Matrix Reasoning Picture Completion (supplemental) Digit Span Working Memory Letter-Number Sequence Picture Completion Coding Processing Speed Symbol Search Cancellation

The WISC-IV has four Index scores Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed that combine to form the Full Scale IQ or measure of "g" (see table 2.3)(Wechsler, 2003a). The revision of the test includes additional subtests redesigned to improve the measurement of the CHC cognitive abilities of fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed (Wechsler, 2003a; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). The test's authors maintain support for the four indexes comes from factor analytical studies of the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003a; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). Test authors used the four factors of the WISC-IV and a standardization sample of 1,525 both collectively and across four ages groups (6-7; 8-10; 11-13; 14-16) in exploratory factor analysis (Wechsler, 2003a). Wechsler (2003a) maintains the four factors provided the best fitting model when compared to less developed models. Confirmatory factor analysis with the same data confirmed the appropriateness of the four-factor model (Wechsler,

88

2003a). Some researchers suggest however, the current revision is removed from any clear adherence to a theoretical framework (Keith, et al, 2006). Keith et al. (2006) in their factor analytical research on the WISC-IV suggest the four index measures may not be the most appropriate structure for the assessment. Keith et al. propose a five-factor model based on the CHC theory is a more appropriate framework for the assessment. Keith et al. analyzed the WISC-IV scores of the agedifferentiated (6:0-16.0) 2,000 subject standardization sample identified in the WISC-IV manual. Keith et al. found that a test framework structured on CHC factors of Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), Visual Processing (Gv), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Short-Term Memory (Gsm) and Processing Speed (Gs) provided the best fit for the data. The results of the study suggest two things: 1) The WISC-IV does measure intelligence as identified by the widely accepted CHC theory of intelligence; 2) There may be certain subtests of the WISC-IV that are specific measures of visual-spatial processing (Gv). The following section will look at which subtests of the WISC-IV are said to measure visual-spatial processing. Visual-Spatial Measures of the WISC-IV While the WISC-IV does not have tasks specifically labeled as visual-spatial processing measures there is research to suggest that one or more subtests in the Perceptual Reasoning Index may measure visual-spatial processing. In addition, some researchers have suggested Perceptual Reasoning assesses two different measures of the CHC theory, Fluid Intelligence (Gf) and Visual Processing (Gv) (Keith, et al., 2006). The subtest of the WISC-IV that is most often referenced in the literature as a complete measure of visual spatial processing is Block Design (BD).

89

BD has been utilized extensively in both the child and adult instruments of the Wechsler series. The BD task requires the subject to use red and white blocks to replicate a model or picture under a time constraint (Wechsler, 2003b). Carroll (1993) identified through factor analysis that BD falls under the broad cognitive ability of Gv and is strictly a measure of the narrow cognitive ability of VZ. Sattler and Dumont (2004) also suggest that it is a measure of spatial relations (SR) in addition to VZ. Further support for BD as a visual-spatial measure comes from the Keith et al. (2006). Keith, et al. found in their factor analysis of the WISC-IV that when BD was loaded on Gf and Gv factors that the model did not improve from the original loading on the Gv factor. Keith, et al. posits the results suggest that BD is more accurately a measure of Gv and not Gf. In addition, an analysis of the literature regarding measures of visual-spatial processing suggests that BD is often considered by researchers as a definitive measure of visual-spatial ability (Carroll, 1993; Cornoldi et al., 2003; Fuchs et al., 2005; Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999; Lee, et al., 2004). Sattler (2001) cautions a child's performance on the BD may be adversely affected by motor skills and vision. Sattler's caution suggests that other abilities (besides visual-spatial processing) may affect an individual's score; calling into question its purity as a measure of visual-spatial processing. Other Perceptual Reasoning index subtests may also measure visual-spatial processing, but as a secondary not primary cognitive ability (Keith, et al. 2006). While not a pure measure of Gv, Picture Completion (PCm) may measure a component of visual-spatial processing. PCm has been an element of the Wechsler series since the original WISC was developed (Wechsler, 2003a). PCm involves the identification of a missing part or parts of a familiar picture under a time constraint. PCm

90

can be considered a measure of the Gv because the subtest requires visual responsiveness, visual perception, visual discrimination and visual memory (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). Sattler and Dumont (2004) more specifically state that PCm may also be a measure of the narrow cognitive ability of flexibility of closure (CF). The confirmatory factor analytical research of Keith et al. (2006) supports PCm as a measure of Gv. Keith, et al. found that while PCm loaded on the Gc factor, it was primarily a measure of Gv. Similarly, while not a pure measure, Matrix Reasoning (MR) may also measure visual-spatial processing. MR requires the subject to identify and select an item/picture from five relatively similar items that will complete a matrix (Zhu & Weiss, 2005). Sattler (2001) states visual-spatial ability may be a cognitive element tapped by MR with some individuals who take the test. Sattler further explains that while MR may have a substantial verbal mediation element, it also involves visual-perceptual and visual-spatial processing elements. Sattler and Dumont (2004) suggest that MR is a measure of both general Gv and the narrow cognitive ability of VZ. Keith et al. (2006) offers some support for MR as a measure of visual-spatial processing as a secondary cognitive ability. Keith et al. found that when Gv and Gf were loaded on MR there was a statistically significant improvement of fit in comparison to the original model with only Gf. However, when cross-validation was conducted the cross loading was not substantial. Keith et al.'s research offers support for Sattler's claim that MR may have an undetermined role in assessing visual-spatial processing. There is some disagreement regarding Symbol Search as a measure of visual-spatial processing.

91

Symbol Search (SS) was added the WISC scales in 1991 (Wechsler, 2003a). The SS subtest requires the subject to visually scan a collection of symbols to identify if a target symbol is present (Zhu & Weiss, 2005). Keith et al. (2006) maintains that SS involves the attention to and discrimination of visual stimuli. In Keith et al's factor analysis of the WISC-IV when Gv and Gs were both loaded on SS there was a significant improvement in the fit of the model in comparison to loading Gs alone. Keith et al. further explains that during cross-validation the cross-loading held constant. Keith et al. suggests these results support SS as a measurement of visual-spatial processing. However, Sattler and Dumont (2004) do not support this claim. Rather Sattler and Dumont contend that SS is a measure of the broad cognitive ability of Gs and the narrow cognitive abilities of perceptual speed (P) and rate of test taking (R9). Summary The WISC-IV and the SB5 are two recently revised tests of intelligence. The WISC-IV and the SB5 were designed to align closely to the modern CHC theory of intelligence. CHC theory has eight-ten broad categories of cognitive ability. One of those categories is Visual Processing (Gv). The literature supports the equitability of the terms visual-spatial processing and the CHC category of Gv (Evans et al, 2002; McGrew, 2005). The SB5 has both verbal and nonverbal measures of visual-spatial processing that combine to form a Visual-Spatial Processing Factor. Two of the SB5 measure (Form Board and Position and Direction) have roots in previous editions. Form Patterns is new to the revised instrument. The author of the test suggests that Form Board and Form Patterns are measures of Gv and the narrow cognitive ability of VZ. The author does not specify which narrow cognitive ability is measured by the Position and Direction subtest.

92

There appears in the literature to be a lack of research regarding the visual-spatial measures of the SB5. The WISC-IV has four subtests that appear to measure visualspatial processing. BD is believed to be a primary measure of visual-spatial processing according to CHC theory. BD is a measure of the broad category of Gv and the narrow categories of VZ and SR. PCm is purported to also measure Gv and the narrow abilities of CS and CF. PCm is not a pure measure of Gv because it is also believed to measure Gc. Additionally, MR is believed to be a measure of the broad category of Gv and the narrow category of VZ in addition to another broad cognitive ability (Cf). Finally, there is limited support to suggest that SS is a measure of Gv. Summary Beginning with the initial special education mandate PL. 94-142 to the present reauthorization of IDEA the definition of a SLD has not undergone significant changes (Hammill, 1990; Kirk & Kirk, 1983; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). One major aspect of the initial and current definition is the idea that a SLD is fundamentally a psychological processing disorder. The majority of state education departments have adopted the federal government's definition of a SLD as a processing disorder (Reschly, et al, 2003). In the identification of students with a SLD, there has been a shift in the literature and law from primarily an ability-achievement discrepancy model to determination though failure to respond to interventions. Neither of the two models are aligned with the definition of a SLD as a psychologically based processing disorder. To increase continuity either the definition of a SLD may need be changed to exclude the processing element or identification may need include a processing component. The literature suggests that psychological processing is significantly involved with the three

93

of the most commonly identified SLDs reading, writing and mathematics. (Badian, 2001; Berninger & Amtmann 2003; Cornwall, 1992; Floyd, et al., 2003; Fuchs, et al. 2005; Fuchs, et al. 2006; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Siegel, 2003; Swanson, et al, 2006). Of the three most common SLD, the literature suggests that mathematics has the least amount of research and further research is suggested (Augustyniak, et al., 2004; Geary & Hoard, 2003; Robinson, Menchetti, & Torgensen, 2002; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). The United States Office of Special Education (2006a) defines a mathematical disability (MD) as a disorder in a basic psychological process. The literature suggests that there are distinct psychological processes that are involved in the mathematical tasks of calculation, fluency and word problems (Floyd, et al. 2003; Fuchs et al., 2006; Fuchs et al, 2005; Geary, 2004; McLean & Hitch, 1999; Swanson, 2004; Swanson, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004). Of those processes, it appears working memory plays a significantly important role in mathematical calculation, fluency and word problems (Geary, 2004; Floyd, et al. 2003; Fuchs et al, 2005; McLean & Hitch, 1999; Swanson, 2006; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). One aspect of working memory is visual-spatial processing (Baddeley, 1996; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). Visual-spatial processing may be related to all three mathematical tasks (Assel, et al., 2003; Augustyniak, et al., 2005; Floyd, et al. 2003; Fuchs, et al., 2005; Hegarty and Kozhevnikov, 1999; Jordan, et al., 2003; Swanson, 2004; Swanson and Sachse-Lee, 2001; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). The literature suggests that additional research is needed in the area of visual-spatial processing and mathematics (Floyd, et al. 2003; Forest, 2004; Fuchs, et al., 2005; Garderen & Montague, 2003; Geary, 1993; Geary, 1996; Geary 2004; Mazzocco & Meyers, 2003; Reuhkala, 2001).

94

In the literature there are a variety of tasks that are believed to measure visualspatial processing; however, there is some disagreement among researchers regarding which task best measures this construct. The newly redesigned Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) includes verbal and nonverbal measures of visual-spatial processing (Becker, 2003; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Roid, 2003a; Roid, 2003b). It has been suggested that Position and Direction, Form Board, and Form Patterns are measures of visual-spatial processing. To date there has been limited research with this redesigned instrument. The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for ChildrenFourth Edition (WISC-IV) has also been recently redesigned (Wechsler, 2003a). There has been recent research that suggests certain subtests of the WISC-IV such as Block Design, Picture Completion, Matrix Reasoning and Symbol Search may assess visualspatial processing (Gv) (Keith, et al, 2006). The next chapter (Chapter III) will describe how a study will be constructed to further research in the areas of mathematical achievement, visual-spatial processing and the SB5.

95

Chapter III METHODOLOGY Statement of the Problem/ Research Questions The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of the visual-spatial measures of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) to discriminate between students with and without difficulties in mathematics achievement. It is suggested from a review of the literature that visual-spatial processing, as measured by the SB5 and the WISC-IV, will be significantly different between students who have lower ability in mathematics and those who do not. In addition, the study identified which visual-spatial measure has the most potential as a discriminator between students who have poor mathematics achievement and those who do not. The following research questions were used as a guide for the current study: 1. Is there a relationship between the psychological process of visual-spatial processing (as measured by the SB5 and WISC IV) and mathematics achievement (as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement-Normative Update (WJ-III-NU)? 2. Can the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 predict mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU)? 4. What visual-spatial measure (SB5; WISC-IV) is the best predictor of poor mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU)?

96

Participants A total of 112 students in grades 6-8 participated in the study. Recruitment occurred during the Spring Semester of 2007 through the Spring Semester of 2008. Participants were recruited from grades 6-8 in northeastern Nebraska (n = 50), northeastern Wyoming (n = 42), north central South Dakota (n= 10), western Minnesota (n= 6), southeastern South Dakota (n - 2), and north central Utah (n = 2). Data were collected by either the researcher or research assistants. The research assistants all had advanced degrees with Education Specialist Degree (Ed. S.) (n = 3) level training or Doctorate (Ph.D.) (n - 1) level training in school psychology. All researchers were required to meet Institutional Research Board (IRB) guidelines in-order to participate in data collection. The mean age of the participants was 12.8 (see table 3.1 for a break down by grade). Participants in the study were relatively evenly distributed between males (49%) and females (50%). Of the participants, 99% indicated English was the language they were most comfortable with, while only 1% indicated they were more comfortable with a language other than English (Spanish). See Tables 3.2-3.4 for additional demographic information. Table 3.1 Participants' Grade Levels Grade Number of Participants 6th 37 th 7 54 8^ 21

97

Table 3.2 Demographics Ethnicity Number of Participants African American 3 Asian/Pacific Islander 2 Hispanic 29 Native American 6 White 69 Other* 3 *Note: The other category consists of participants who indicated more than one category of ethnicity and no primary category. Table 3.3 Language Spoken at Home Language English Spanish Both English and Spanish Laotian Togan/English

Number of Participants 81 21 7 1 1

Table 3.4 Level of Parental Education Level of Education Number of Participants Less than High School 2 Some High School 8 High School 43 College* 53 Not Indicated 6 *Note: College includes technical college, 2-year college degree, a 4-year degree and/or an advanced degree (M.S., Ph.D., J.D, etc.) The sample for the study was composed of students in 6th, 7 th and 8 th grades between the ages of 11-14. Students at this grade level were chosen for the current study for several reasons. First, previous research conducted with students at this age level with measures of visual-spatial processing and mathematics, has found a significant relationship (Garden & Montague, 2003; Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999; Reuhkala, 2001; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2001). Second, by fifth grade, students

98

are believed to have mastered higher-level mathematical skills including retrieval of basic mathematical facts, decomposition, distribution and advanced word problem solving (Carr & Hettinger, 2003). In addition, using 6th, 7th and 8th grade students will provide an understanding of the relationship between visual-spatial processing and mature mathematical thinking. Finally, the literature supports that visual-spatial material is processed in working memory, which may not be fully developed in students in lower grades (Baddeley, 1996; Reuhkala, 2001). A power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate number of subjects for the logistic regression, using PASS statistical software developed by NCSS (2005). The PASS power calculation software is based on the sample size calculation method for logistic regression developed by Hsieh, Block, and Larson (1998) (NCSS, 2005). Assuming a normal distribution and that the sample is similar to the population, it is estimated that 25% (.25) of the participants will score below the 25th percentile in mathematics using the WJ-III-NU. The use of 25th percentile as a cutoff to identify students with poor mathematics achievement is consistent with previous research (Fuchs et al. 2005; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 2007). For an odds ratio of .53, 103 total subjects would be needed for power of .80 (NCSS, 2005). The current sample of 112 exceeds that criteria. In addition, it has been recommended, assuming a medium effect size (a = .05; ft = .20), the sample size needed for adequate power in a multiple regression is TV> 50 + 8m (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, for analyzing individual predictors in a multiple regression Tabachnick and Fidell recommend JV> 104 + m (m = the number of independent variables). Given three independent variables (N> 50 + 8(3)

99

or iV> 74 and JV> 104 + (3) orN> 107), it appears the current sample size to meets power requirements in both areas. Participants scoring in the 25 percentile on the mathematics measure (WJ-III) for the study were identified as having "poor mathematics achievement". Previous literature has identified students that score in the 25th percentile or lower on standardized measures of mathematics achievement have or may develop a mathematics disability that will negatively influence their mathematical performance in the classroom (Geary, 1993; Geary, 2004; Mazzocco & Meyer, 2003; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Zeleke, 2004). Instrumentation The following identifies the instrumentation utilized in the study to assess IQ, visual-spatial ability and mathematical ability. Intelligence Measure An estimated IQ or general ability index was obtained by using the Abbreviated Battery of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5). The Abbreviated SB5 IQ assessment consists of the two routing subtests of the SB5 (Object Series/Matrices and Vocabulary). The Object Series/Matrices subtest is a fluid reasoning measure that requires subjects to not only conceptualize problems that have figural elements, but also visually discriminate among pictured objects that have figural as well as geometric properties (Roid, 2003a). The Vocabulary subtest is a measure of verbal knowledge and requires the subjects to define vocabulary words (Roid, 2003a). Both subtests are graduated in difficulty and have a mean score of 10 and a standard deviation of3.

100

The Abbreviated Battery of the SB5 was standardized in conjunction with the complete measure. SB5 was standardized on 4,800 subjects ranging in age from 2-80+ with demographics similar to the 2000 U.S. Census population (Roid, 2003b). The standardization sample was constructed of 51% female, 49% male, 69% white, 12% African American, 12% Hispanic, 4% Asian and 3% other (Roid, 2003a). The Full Scale IQ and the Abbreviated IQ version of the SB5 have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The Abbreviated IQ battery has substantial internal consistency reliability (r =. 91) (Roid, 2003b). The internal consistency reliability with children aged, 10 years (r = .88), 11 years (r = .87), 12 years (r = .90), 13 years (r = .85; and 14 (r = .91) years is also moderate to high (Roid, 2003b). The Abbreviated SB5 IQ correlates well with the SB5 Full scale IQ (r = .87) (Roid, 2003b).The Abbreviated SB5 correlates moderately (r = .71) with the Composite Standards Age Score of the Stanford-Binet IV (Roid, 2003b). In addition, the abbreviated battery correlates moderately with both the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) (r = .69) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III) (r = .81) (Roid, 2003b). Visual-Spatial Measures Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Measure of the SB5 Form Board. The Form Board task of the SB5 is a nonverbal measure of visualspatial processing and is used in the 1st and 2nd levels of the Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing subtest of the SB5 (Roid, 2003a). The task involves the use of a form board made of plastic with recessed shapes for a triangle, a square and a circle. The subject uses pieces of geometric figures (circle, square and triangle) to form shapes on the form board. The task was standardized in conjunction with the standardization of the full SB5

101

instrument. The subtest has a mean standard score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The Form Board task is combined with Form Patterns task to form the Nonverbal VisualSpatial Processing measures. Form Patterns. The Form Patterns task of the Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing subtest is a continuation of the Form Board task with increased complexity and used on levels 3-6 of the subtest. The Form Patterns task measures visualization ability through the analyzing and duplication of patterns based on a two-dimensional field (Roid, 2003a). The Form Patterns utilizes geometric shapes and requires the subject to duplicate figures or forms. The Form Patterns subtest has a mean standard score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing subtest is the combined Form Board and Form Patterns tasks, each task was not separated out for reliability or validity. The Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing subtest maintains adequate overall reliability (r = .87) as well as moderate to adequate reliability at ages 10 (r = .76), 11 (r = .79), 12 (r = .72), 13 (r =.79) and 14 (r = .83) (Roid, 2003a). The Nonverbal Visual-Spatial subtests have moderate (r =.87) test-retest reliability with ages 6-20 (Roid, 2003a). The subtest correlates moderately (Ages 6-10.11 years, r = .70; Ages 11-16.11 years r = .63) with the Full Scale IQ of the SB5 (Roid, 2003b). Verbal Visual-Spatial Measures of the SB 5 Position and Direction. Position and Direction is the Verbal Visual-Spatial measure of the SB5. The task begins with the use of a small ball or green block and a cup at the earliest levels and requires that subject to demonstration positional awareness (inside, top, bottom, etc...). The more complex levels of the task involve the subject

102

placing a green block on a stimulus page locating order and direction. The most complex level of the task requires the subject to verbalize directions (left, right, north, south, etc...) by visualizing a specific route from various printed pathways on a stimulus map (Roid, 2003a). The subtest has 6 levels with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The Position and Direction subtest was standardized in conjunction with the standardization of the full SB5 battery. The Verbal Visual-Spatial subtest correlates moderately with the Full Scale IQ of the SB5 (Ages 6-10.11, r = .75; Ages 11-16.11, r = .76) (Roid, 2003b). The Verbal Visual-Spatial subtest has adequate overall internal consistency reliability (r = .86) as well as moderate internal consistency reliability at ages 10 (r = .89), 11 (r = .86), 12 (r = .84) 13 (r = .87) and 14 (r = .88) (Roid, 2003b). Position and Direction has adequate tests-retest reliability (r = .79) with ages 6-20 (Roid, 2003a). Specificity of the Visual-Spatial Measures of the SB5 Specificity is a measure of the unique variance of a subtest. Specific variance is the part of the total variance that is unique to that specific subtest (Roid & Barram, 2004; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). If a subtest's specific variance exceeds its error variance it is said to have specificity (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). If a subtest in an intelligence measure has ample (> 25%) or adequate (25-15%) specificity it is said to be measure something distinctly different from the hypothesized "g" or general intelligence (Roid & Barram, 2004; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The Nonverbal Visual-Spatial subtest of the SB5 (Form Patterns) demonstrates ample specificity (specificity = .28; error variance = .13) suggesting the subtest measures a construct unique to the hypothesized "g" or general intelligence (Roid & Barram, 2004). This suggests the SB5's nonverbal measure of

103

visual-spatial processing may be interpreted as a unique construct (Roid & Barram, 2004). The Verbal Visual-Spatial subtest (Position and Direction) of the SB5, demonstrates adequate specificity (specificity = .17; error variance = .13); however, with a specificity below .25 it suggests little unique variance is accounted for and caution should be should be used in interpreting this subtests apart from the hypothesized "g" or general intelligence (Roid & Barram, 2004; Sattler, 2008). This suggests that while the verbal measure of visual-spatial processing demonstrates some unique variance in comparison to the global factor of intelligence, some caution may be warranted in detailed interpretation of the subtest (Roid & Barram, 2004). Validity of the Visual-Spatial Measures of the SB5 Evidence of criterion-related validity of the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 comes from the SB5's relationship to subtests in previous Stanford-Binet editions that measure visual-spatial processing and other tests that are believed to have measures of visual-spatial processing. The SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing factor, which includes both the Verbal and Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing subtests, correlates moderately (r = .79) with the Abstract/Visual Reasoning scale of the previous Stanford-Binet, Fourth Edition (SB IV) (Roid, 2003). Sattler (2001) suggests the subtests that combine to form the Abstract/ Visual Reasoning scale (Pattern Analysis; Copying; Matrices; Paper Folding and Cutting) of the SB IV are measures of visual-spatial processing. In addition, the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing factor correlates moderately (r =.70) with the Performance IQ score of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligenceRevised (WPPSI-R). The WPPSI-R Performance IQ subtests (Object Assembly; Geometric Design; Block Design; Mazes; Picture Completion; Animal Pegs) are believed

104

to consist of measures of both visual and spatial constructs (Sattler, 2001). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III) Performance IQ also correlates moderately (r = .71) with the Visual-Spatial Processing factor of the SB5 (Roid, 2003a). The Performance IQ subtests (Picture Completion; Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Digit-Symbol-Coding; Picture Arrangement; Symbol Search; Object Assembly) include measures of both visual and spatial skills (Sattler, 2001). However, the SB5 VisualSpatial Processing factor does not correlate substantially (r = .42) with the Performance IQ score of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III). Roid (2003a) attributes the lower correlation to the WISC-III's emphasis on time sensitive and time-bonus elements. Finally, the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor correlates adequately (r =.56) with the Spatial Relations subtest of the WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Abilities which is designed to be a measure of visual-spatial processing (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001; Roid, 2003a). The SB5 visual-spatial processing measures also demonstrate predictive validity, utility with English language learners and applicability with individuals from differing SES levels. The Visual-Spatial Processing factor score of SB5 correlates moderately with Broad Math (r = .61), and the Math Calculation Skills (r =.59) of the Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement-Third Edition (Roid, 2003a). The correlation (r = .69) between the Visual-Spatial factor score of SB5 and the Mathematics Composite of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition is also moderate. The use of the SB5 visual spatial processing measures with English language learners has been investigated. In a study involving 65 students (49% identified as Hispanic English language learners), the mean Visual-Spatial score was 93.8 (Roid, 2003a). The students' scores were

105

approximately one-half of a standard deviation below the expected mean of 100 (Roid, 2003a). In the standardization of the SB5 battery, parent education level was used as a measure of SES. In the standardization sample for ages 10-14, 54.5-52.5% of the subjects had a parent with a 12th grade education or lower (Roid, 2003). Visual-Spatial Measures of the WISC-IV Block Design. Block Design is identified as a core Perceptual Reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale- Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). The subtest has 14 items with a mean scaled score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The subject is required to use red, white, and half-red/ half-white blocks to replicate block pattern designs. The subtest is designed to measure spatial visualization, visual perceptual abilities, and can be conceptualized as a task that involves relations of a spatial nature (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). Block Design was standardized in conjunction with the complete WISC-IV battery on 2,200 children; with a sample that was representative of the demographic characteristics of 2000 United States census population (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003 a). The standardization sample included 63% Euro Americans, 16% African Americans, 15% Hispanic Americans, 4% Asian Americans, and 1% other (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Block Design has adequate overall internal consistency reliability (r = .86) and at ages 10 (r = .84), 11 (r = .87), 12 (r = .88), 13 (r = .88) and 14 {r = .85) (Wechsler, 2003a; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The subtest has moderate test-retest reliability with ages 10-11 (r = .86), 12-13 (r = .82) and 14-16 (r = .86) (Wechsler, 2003a; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The Block Design subtest loads significantly on Perceptual Reasoning Index (.78) and correlates moderately (r = .70) with the Full Scale IQ of the WISC-IV (Sattler & Dumont, 2004).

106

Matrix Reasoning. Matrix Reasoning is a core subtest of the Perceptual Reasoning Index. Matrix Reasoning requires the subject to view an incomplete matrix and visually discriminate among five choices, then identify which figure will complete the matrix (Wechsler, 2003a). Matrix Reasoning is suggested to be a measure of visual-spatial processing (Keith et al., 2006; Sattler, 2001; Sattler & Dumont 2004). Matrix Reasoning has 35 test items with a mean standard score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Matrix Reasoning has moderate to high overall internal consistency reliability (r = .89) and maintains moderate to high internal consistency reliability at ages 10 (r = .89), 11 (r = .89), 12 (r = .92), 13 (r = .89) and 14 (r = .87) (Wechsler, 2003a; Sattler & Dumont 2004). The subtest has moderate to high test-retest reliability with ages 10-11 (r = .92), 12-13 (r = .80) and 14-16 (r = .78) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). Matrix Reasoning has an adequate correlation with the Full Scale IQ (r = .72), and has a substantial correlation with the Perceptual Reasoning Index (r = .84) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Picture Completion. Picture Completion is a non-core subtest of Perceptual Reasoning. The subtest requires the subject to visually identify a missing part of a picture under a time constraint (Wechsler, 2003a). The Picture Completion subtest requires visual responsiveness, visual perception, visual discrimination and visual memory (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Zhu & Weiss, 2005). The Picture Completion subtests is believed to be a measure of visual-spatial processing (Keith et al. 2006; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The subtest has 38 items of increasing difficulty, with a mean standard score of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The subtest was standardized in conjunction with the standardization of the entire WISC-IV assessment. Picture Completion has good

107

overall internal consistency reliability (r = .84) and sufficient internal consistency reliability at ages 10 (r = .85), 11 (r = .87), 12 (r = .84), 13 (r = .83) and 14 (r = .82) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). The subtest has moderate to high test-retest reliability at ages 10-11 (r= .85), 12-13 (r = .84) and 14-16 (r = .87) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). Picture Completion correlates adequately with the Full Scale IQ (r = .60) and the Perceptual Reasoning Index (r = .57) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Specificity of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Measures Specificity is a measure of the unique variances of a subtest. Specific variance is the part of the total variance that is unique to that specific subtest (Roid & Barram, 2004; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). If a subtest's specific variance exceeds its error variance it is said to have specificity (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). If a subtest in an intelligence measure has ample (> 25%) or adequate (25-15%) specificity it is said to measure something distinctly different from the hypothesized "g" or general intelligence (Roid & Barram, 2004; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The Block Design (specificity = .36; error variance = .14) Matrix Reasoning (specificity = .51; error variance = .11) and Picture Completion (specificity = .40; error variance = .16) all demonstrate ample specificity (> 25%; error variance < 25%) (Sattler, 2008; Sattler & Dumont, 2004). This suggests all three subtests are distinctly different from "g". Validity of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Measures The evidence of criterion-validity for the WISC-IV subtest measures is limited due to the lack of cross-battery studies conducted (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). The main criterion validity studies involving the WISC-IV are with earlier versions of the test and comparisons to Wechsler scales for ages outside of the age range of the WISC-IV. The

108

Perceptual Reasoning Index of the WISC-IV that includes measures of visual-spatial processing (Block Design; Picture Completion; Matrix Reasoning) correlate moderately (r = .70) with the Perceptual Organization Index of the WISC-III that also includes measures of visual-spatial processing (Block Design; Picture Arrangement; Picture Completion; Object Assembly) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). In addition, the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV correlate slightly higher (r = .73) with the Performance IQ of the WISC-III that includes the additional measures of Coding, Symbol Search, and Mazes (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). The visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV also correlate similarly (r = .71) with both the Perceptual Organization Index (Picture Completion; Block Design; Matrix Reasoning) and the Performance IQ (Picture Completion; Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Digit-SymbolCoding; Picture Arrangement; Symbol Search; Object Assembly) of the WAIS-III (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). Finally, the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV correlate moderately (r = .74) with the Performance IQ of the Wechsler, Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Ill (WPPSI-III) that includes measures of visual-spatial processing (Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Object Assembly; Picture Completion) (Sattler & Dumont, 2004; Wechsler, 2003a). The WISC-IV visual-spatial measures (Block Design, Picture Completion, and Matrix Reasoning) also demonstrate predictive validity, utility with Hispanic American students and applicability with individuals from differing SES levels. Overall the Perceptual Reasoning index correlates moderately with the Mathematics Composite (r = .67), Numerical Operations (r = .60), and Math Reasoning (r = .67) of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition (WIAT-II) (Wechsler, 2003a). Block

109

Design correlates adequately with the Mathematics Composite (r = .57), Numerical Operations (r = .50), and Math Reasoning (r= .58) of the WIAT-II (Wechsler, 2003a). Picture Completion correlates adequately with the Mathematics Composite (r = .47), Numerical Operations (r =.41), and Math Reasoning (r = .59) of the (WIAT-II) (Wechsler, 2003a). Matrix Reasoning correlates moderately with Mathematics Composite (r = .60), and adequately with Numerical Operations (r = .53), and Math Reasoning (r= .59) of the WIAT-II (Wechsler, 2003a). In the standardization sample of the WISC-IV researchers found the Full Scale IQ score obtained by Hispanic American children was on average 10 points lower than Euro American children (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). In addition, Hispanic American children scored 3-6 points higher on the Perceptual Reasoning Index in comparison to their score on the Verbal Comprehension Index (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). There is limited information available from the test publishers or the literature on the use of the WISC-IV with English Language Learners. One reason for this may be that the publisher has created a separate Spanish Version (with Spanish language norms) for the WISC-IV. The WISC-IV also uses parent education level as an indicator of SES. On the Perceptual Reasoning Index (that includes Block Design, Picture Completion and Matrix Reasoning) parents of children with an 8 grade education or less score approximately 15 points lower than children of parents with a college degree (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). In addition, 42-42.5 % of the parents of the children in the standardization sample (2,200) had a high school education or less. This suggests that children of lower SES were represented in the standardization of the instrument.

110

Measure of Mathematics Achievement The administration of the standard mathematics battery of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement-Normative Update (WJ-III-NU) was used to assess the mathematical achievement of the participants. The Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) was renormed in 2007. The normative data was recalculated to align with the 2005 U. S. Census statistics and is an update of the norm construction procedures (McGrew, Schrank & Woodcock, 2007). The publishers of the test used the same standardization sample that was used in the original norming of the WJ-III (McGrew et al., 2007). The standardization sample of the WJ-III-NU included 4,740 students in grades K-12 (McGrew et al., 2007). The demographic makeup of the sample was 78.4% White, 14.5% African American, 12% Hispanic, 5.1% Asian and Pacific Islander, and 2% Native American (McGrew et al., 2007) Information regarding the use of the WJ-III and the WJ-III-NU and English language learners (specifically Hispanic/ Latino children) is limited. The main reason for the lack of representative information may be the publisher provides an alternative Spanish Language adaptation/translation called the Bateria III Woodcock-Munoz. This measure is specifically designed for Spanish speaking populations. The Examiner's Manual of the WJ-III suggests that it is important ensure the English language proficiency of subjects prior to administration of the WJ-III (Mather &Woodcock, 2001). The standardization sample excluded those individuals that had less than one year experience in English speaking classes (McGrew &Woodcock, 2001). However, the standardization sample included 570 students that identified their ethnicity as Hispanic (McGrew &Woodcock, 2001; McGrew et al, 2007). In addition, as a measure of SES

111

70% of the parents of the standardization sample had a high school diploma or less (McGrew &Woodcock, 2001). The WJ-III-NU Broad Math Cluster is the combined scores on the Calculation, Fluency and Applied Problems subtest. In addition, the WJ-III also reports a Math Calculation Skills Cluster that includes the Calculation and Fluency subtests. The following provides reliability and validity information for the WJ-III-NU. Broad Math Cluster The overall Broad Math Cluster has high test-retest reliability at ages 8-10 (r .92), 11-13 (r= .92) and 14-17 (r = .91) (McGrew et al., 2007). The overall Broad Math Cluster also has high internal consistency reliabilities at ages 10 {rcc= .94), 11 {rcc~ .95), 12 (rcc= .94), 13 (rcc= .95) and \4(rcc= .96) (McGrew et al., 2007). The validity of the Broad Math Cluster comes mainly from a comparison with other measures of achievement; this was not updated in the WJ-III-NU. The Broad Math Cluster correlates moderately (r = .66) with the Mathematics Composite of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA) in grades 1-8 (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The Broad Math Cluster also correlates moderately (r = .70) with the Mathematics Composite of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) in grades 1-8 (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). In addition, there is evidence of the relationship between the Broad Math Cluster and measures of IQ. The Broad Math Cluster correlates moderately (r =.76) with the Full Scale IQ of the SB5 (Roid, 2003a). The Broad Math Cluster also correlates moderately at ages 9-13 (r = .67) and 14-19 (r = .67) with the General Intellectual Ability cluster (standard battery) of the WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Normative Update (McGrew et al, 2007). Additionally, the Broad Math Cluster correlates moderately (r -

112

.82) with the General Conceptual Ability composite of the Differential Ability ScalesSecond Edition with ages 8-13.11 (Elliott, 2007). Math Calculation Skills Cluster The Math Calculation Skills Cluster also has high test-retest reliability at ages 810 (r = .89), 11-13 (r = .86) and 14-17 (r = .82) (McGrew et al. 2007). The Math Calculation Skills Cluster also has high internal consistency reliabilities at ages 10 (rcc = .91), 11 (rcc= .92), 12 (rcc= .90), 13 (rcc= .93) and 14(rcc= .91) (McGrew et al, 2007). Validity information for the Math Calculation Skills Cluster comes mainly from a comparison with other measures of achievement and was not updated for the WJ-III-NU. The Math Calculation Skills Cluster correlates moderately with the Mathematics Composite (r = .60) and the Mathematics Computation (r = .67) scale of the KTEA in grades 1-8 (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The Math Calculation Skills Cluster also correlates moderately (r = .69) with the Mathematics Composite and adequately (r = .59) with the Numerical Operations scale of the WIAT (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). There is evidence of the relationship between the Math Calculation Skills Cluster and measures of cognitive ability. The Math Calculation Skills cluster correlates moderately (r = .74) with the Full Scale IQ of the SB5 (Roid, 2003a). In addition, the Math Calculation Skills Cluster correlates adequately at ages 9-13 (r = .54) and 14-19 (r =.73) with the General Intellectual Ability Cluster (standard battery) of the WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Abilities Normative Update (McGrew et al., 2007). Finally, the Math Calculation Skills Cluster correlates moderately (r = .71) with the General Conceptual Ability composite of the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition with ages 8-13.11 (Elliott, 2007).

113

Calculation Calculation is a standard subtest of the WJ-III-NU. Calculation is a subtest in the WJ-III-NU Broad Math Cluster and the Math Calculation Skills Cluster. The Calculation subtest measures a student's ability to perform increasingly difficult mathematical calculations (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). The subtest requires the student to solve subtraction, addition, multiplication, and division problems with fractions and whole numbers. The subtest has 45 items with a mean standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The calculation subtest was standardized in conjunction with the entire WJ-III-NU. The Calculation subtest has moderate to high test-retest reliability at ages 8\Q(r= .83), 11-13 (r = .81) and 14-17 (r = .76) (McGrew et al, 2007). Calculation has moderate internal consistency reliabilities at ages 10 (rn= .85), 11 (r,,= .87), 12 {r,,= .84), 13 {r= .86) and 14(ru= .83) (McGrew et al., 2007). Calculation also correlates adequately (r = .56) with the Global Fluid-Crystallized Index of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition in grades 6-10 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Further information regarding the correlation of the Calculation subtest and cognitive ability measures can be ascertained from the previously mentioned correlations identifying the relationship of the Broad Math Cluster and the Math Calculation Skills Cluster to the SB5, WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Ability and the Differential Ability ScalesSecond Edition. Fluency Fluency is a standard subtest of the WJ-III-NU. Fluency is a subtest in the WJ-IIINU Broad Math Cluster and the Math Calculation Skills Cluster. Fluency measures a student's ability to rapidly and efficiently work with mathematical facts (Sattler, 2001).

114

Fluency requires the subject to rapidly solve single digit addition, subtraction and multiplication problems. The subtest has 160 items with a mean standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). Fluency was standardized in conjunction with the standardization of the entire WJ-III-NU. Fluency has moderate to high test-retest reliability at ages 8-10 (r = .86), 11-13 (r = .89) and 14-17 (r = .92) (McGrew, et al. 2007). Fluency has high internal consistency reliabilities at ages 10 (ru = .96), 11 {r= .97), 12 {r,,= .97), 13 (r 7/ = .98) and 14(r= .98) (McGrew et al., 2007). However, Fluency's correlation (r =.31) with the Global Fluid-Crystallized Index of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition in grades 6-10 is not substantial (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Further information regarding the correlation of the Fluency subtest and measures of cognitive ability can be ascertained from the previously mentioned correlations identifying the relationship of the Broad Math Cluster and the Math Calculation Skills Cluster to the SB5, WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Ability and the Differential Ability Scales- Second Edition. Applied Problems Applied Problems is a standard subtest of the WJ-III-NU. Applied Problems is a subtest in the Broad Math Cluster. The Applied Problems measures the ability to solve problems of a mathematical nature that are organized around practical situations (Sattler, 2001). The WJ-III Applied Problems was standardized in conjunction with the standardization of the entire WJ-III-NU. Applied Problems has 63 items, a mean standard score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Applied Problems has moderate test-retest reliability with ages 8-10 (r = .85), 11-13 (r = .88) and 14-17 (r = .89) (McGrew et al., 2007). Applied Problems has high internal consistency reliabilities at ages 10 (r,,= .91),

115

11 (r,,= .91), 12 (r,,= .92), 13 (r= .92) and 14 (/= .95) (McGrew et al., 2007). In addition, Applied Problems correlates moderately (r = .76) with the Global FluidCrystallized Index of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition in grades 6-10 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Further information regarding the correlation of the Applied Problems subtest to intelligence measures can be ascertained from the previously mentioned correlations identifying the relationship of the Broad Math to the SB5, WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Ability and the Differential Ability Scales- Second Edition. Procedures Subjects were recruited from a small Midwestern school district in the Northeast section of Nebraska, and a small Western school district in the Northeast section of Wyoming. The school districts were informed of the nature, purpose, benefits and any potential risks of the study. In addition, the researcher solicited assistance from practicing school psychology graduates and a former professor from the School Psychology Program at The University of South Dakota working for schools and educational cooperatives. Each school district and/or cooperative was informed of the nature, purpose, benefits and any potential risks of the study. Permission was obtained from each school district or educational cooperative to allow the researcher or research assistants to participate in the study (see appendix A). The researcher and research assistants met Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements prior to participation in the study. The IRB received copies of all school district or educational cooperative permission letters. Students in grades 6th, 7th and 8th at each of the participating school districts and/or cooperatives were given a letter/permission form (English and Spanish translation

116

where applicable) and asked to take the form home to their parents/guardian. The letter identified the purpose, risks, benefits and method of the study. The researcher and research assistants worked cooperatively with classroom teachers, and school administrators to hand out and collect the permission forms. No individual was allowed to participate in the study unless they had a signed parent/guardian consent form and had signed the participant assent form. After parent/guardian permission forms were returned, testing occurred during the school day in the students' respective schools. The testing session lasted approximately one (1) hour. Students were provided with a consent form, assent form and a form asking for demographic information (see appendix C). Students were administered the abbreviated IQ test of the SB5, Nonverbal and Verbal Visual-Spatial subtests of the SB5 the Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Completion subtests of the WISC-IV, and the Calculation, Fluency and Applied problems subtest of the WJ-III. To account for some practice effects, the order of administration of the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and SB5 was alternated, but not in any systematic fashion. In addition, in an attempt to minimize fatigue effects the administration of the subtests was kept as fluid as possible. Data Analysis To fully conceptualize the relationship of visual-spatial processing and mathematical achievement the following research questions were used to guide the study. Research Question 1 Is there a relationship between visual-spatial processing, (measured by the SB5 and the WISC-IV), and mathematics achievement (measured by the WJ-III-NU)?

117

Rationale and Statistical Technique A correlation analysis was used to identify if a significant relationship existed between the visual-spatial processing measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 and the mathematics achievement measures of the WJ-III-NU. If a significant relationship could not be identified then it would suggest visual-spatial processing is possibly not related to poor mathematics achievement. If a significant relationship was identified, then it would be important to know if mathematical achievement can be predicted by visual-spatial processing, and which measures (SB5; WISC-IV) of visual-spatial processing are the best predictors. The data were analyzed using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) to understand the relationship among the variables across all subjects. All variables were entered into the equation. This analysis technique was the most appropriate because it is used to determine the strength and the direction of the relationship between independent variables and a dependent variable (Glenberg, 1996). Research Question 2 Can the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 predict mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU) ? Rationale and Statistical Technique A multiple regression analysis was used to identify if the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 could predict mathematics achievement. In addition, participants' IQs were controlled for to identify the unique contribution of the visualspatial processing measures. If the visual-spatial measures can predict student

118

mathematics achievement, it would then be important to identify between the two visualspatial measures, which is a better predictor of mathematics achievement. A sequential multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the data. The independent variables were: 1) The Combined WISC-IV Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Completion subtest scores; 2) SB5 Visual Spatial Processing Factor (the Form Patterns and the Position and Direction subtests); 3) SB5 Abbreviated IQ. The dependent variable was the participants' score on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. A sequential multiple regression was constructed with IQ in the first block and the remaining independent variables in the second block. Comparing the R2, more specifically the change in (A) R2, of the first model to the second model indicated the unique predictive ability of the visual-spatial measures while holding IQ constant across all participants. Due to the potential of multicollinearity and singularity among the independent variables, (because they may be measures of the same construct) combined factor/composite scores were used in the study. Combining variables is one way to reduce potential multicollinearity and increase power (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005; Myers, & Weld, 2003; Tabachnick & Fidel, 2007). Research Question 3 Which visual-spatial measure (SB5; WISC-IV) is the better predictor of a student with poor mathematics achievement (as measured by the WJ-III-NU)? Rationale and Statistical Technique A logistic regression allows for the prediction of a discrete outcome (poor achievement/ adequate achievement). Logistic regression is often used in medical research (disease/no-disease models). Logistic regression is often preferable to other

119

techniques such as discriminant analysis because it has fewer restrictions and can be used with continuous, discrete, and/ or dichotomous independent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, using a sequential logistic regression allowed for the control of IQ, to identify the unique relationship of the visual-spatial measures. Using two separate logistic regressions allowed for a comparison between the two tests (SB5 and WISC-IV). The two logistic regression identified which visual-spatial measure was the better predictor of poor achievement in mathematics while controlling for IQ. Identifying the best predictor is important because it may indicate which visual-spatial measure (WISCIV; SB5) can more accurately be used to identify students with poor achievement in mathematics. Additionally, this may in turn provide more accuracy in the assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities in the area of mathematics. The dependent variable was the assignment to dichotomous groups depending on mathematics performance. With those participants who scored in the 25 percentile or lower on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU being placed in the "poor mathematical performance" group. As mentioned previously, poor mathematics achievement is identified by a score in the 25 percentile or less on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. There is a potential for multicollinearity with both logistic regressions. However, the previous correlation and multiple regression analysis identified any potential multicollinearity prior to the logistic regression. The researcher combined or eliminated offending variables. The data were analyzed with two separate sequential logistic regressions both controlling for a participant's score on the SB5 Abbreviated IQ: 1) The first logistic regression consisted of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite scores and a dichotomous

120

poor achievement and adequate achievement dependent variable; 2) The second logistic regression consisted of the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor scores and a dichotomous poor achievement and adequate achievement dependent variable. To identify the unique predictive ability of the visual-spatial measures (SB5; W1SC-IV) while controlling for IQ, a sequential logistic regression was used in both regressions. For both logistic regressions, IQ was entered in the first block and the remaining independent variables were entered in the second block. A comparison of the reported Nagelkerke R2, -2 Log likelihood, and Model Chi-Square indicated the predictive ability of the visual-spatial measures over and above IQ. Specifically, the A Chi-Square between the models suggested the predictive ability of the visual-spatial measures while holding IQ constant across all participants. To determine the better model a comparison of the -2 Log likelihoods and Nagelkerke R of both sequential logistic regressions (WISC-IV; SB5) was conducted.
9 9

Nagelkerke R is an adjustment of the Cox & Snell R and is a variance interpretation similar to R2 used in multiple linear regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The more accurate model showed the least amount of error (-2 Log likelihood) and accounted for the largest amount of variance (Nagelkerke R ). In addition, to identify the best predictor among the independent variables a comparison of the log odds/odds ratio was conducted. An odds ratio can be interpreted as an effect size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Odds ratios that are further away from 1 indicated a larger effect (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The best predictor was identified by the independent variable that most accurately predicted poor mathematical achievement.

121

Summary The current study investigated the utility of the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 and the WISC-IV to identify students with low achievement in mathematics. The independent variables for the study were: 1) WISC-IV Block Design subtest; 2) WISC-IV Matrix Reasoning subtest; 3) WISC-IV Picture Completion WISC-IV; 4) The combined WISC-IV Block Design subtest, Matrix Reasoning subtest, and Picture Completion subtest composite score; 5) SB5 Position and Direction subtest; 6) SB5 Form Board subtest; 7) SB5 Visual Spatial Processing Factor (Position and Direction and Form Patterns); 8) SB5 Abbreviated IQ score. The dependent variable for the study was the students' score on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. The analysis of the data included a correlation, a multiple regression and a logistic regression. The following chapter (Chapter IV) reports the results of the data analysis. The final chapter (Chapter V) discusses the implications of the results.

122

CHAPTER IV RESULTS

Data Analysis This chapter presents the results of the data analysis. The data were initially screened for assumption violations. After the initial data screening, each of the subsequent research questions were addressed. As described in the methods section, a correlation analysis, a multiple regression and a logistic regression were utilized to address each respective research question. Preliminary Analysis Of the 112 participants, there were no missing or incomplete cases. The original data set included nine variables: 1) Participants' scaled scores on the Block Design subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV); 2) Participants' scaled scores on the Matrix Reasoning subtest of the WISC-IV; 3) Participants' scaled scores on the Picture Completion of the WISC-IV; 4) Participants' combined Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Picture Completion scores; 5) Participants' standard scores on the Abbreviated IQ Battery of the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition (SB5); 6) Participants' scaled scores on the Form Patterns subtest of the SB5; 7) Participants' scaled scores on the Position and Direction subtest of the SB5; 8) Participants' standard scores on the Visual-Spatial Processing Factor Index of the SB5; 9) Participants' standard scores on Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. A linear transformation was performed on the combined Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Picture Completion variable (variable indentified as #4 above), to transform the variable into the scale used by the remaining composite scores. This

123

variable is the combination of the three visual-spatial subtests of the WISC-IV. The combined Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Picture completion score was first transformed into a Z-score [z = (X- jx)la\ where X= the combined score, JU = mean of the combined score, and a = the standard deviation of the combined score] and then transformed into the standard score (ss) scale (ss =fi + z(a); where the ju = 100; o =15) used by both the WJ-III-NU and the SB5 (Glenberg, 1996; Roid, 2003; Wechsler, 2003, McGrew, Schrank, & Woodcock, 2007). A linear transformation does not change a variable's relationship to other variables (Glenberg, 1996). After the transformation, the data were analyzed for violations of normality and the presences of univariate outliers. Only one variable demonstrated notable deviations from normality. The Matrix Reasoning variable had notable positive skewness (z = 3.77) and negative kurtosis (z = -5.16). This skewness may have been attributable to the presences of two potential outliers as suggested in a histogram, stem and leaf plot and box plot. Standardized residuals confirmed two subjects had standardized residuals greater than z = 3.29 from the mean and were eliminated from the data analysis, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidel (2007). The removal of the cases reduced the positive skewness (z = 0.14) and negative kurtosis (z = 0-.54) for the Matrix Reasoning Variable to an acceptable level. None of the remaining variables indicated any univariate outliers with standardized residuals greater than z = 3.29 from the mean. The data were also examined for multivariate outliers. Mahalanobis distance values were examined to identify multivariate outliers. Potential outliers were identified as cases with Mahalanobis distances greater than^ 2 (9) = 27.88, p < .001 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). One subject had a Mahalanobis distance of/2 = 69.01 and was eliminated.

124

Further analysis identified this subject had notably lower scores on the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 the WISC-IV and a comparatively higher score on the Broad Math cluster of the WJ-III-NU. The data were also investigated for subjects with large influence through the analysis of Cook's distance [3(k+l)/N; where k = number of independent variables (9) and N = number of subjects (109)]. No subject was equal to or exceeded a Cook's distance of 0.28. In addition, for each subject, leverage values were examined and no comparatively large leverage values were found in the data. The deletion of the univariate and multivariate outliers left a total of 109 cases (see table 4.1 for descriptive statistics). Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics Variable Block Design Matrix Reasoning Picture Completion WISC-IV Combined Visual-Spatial Measures Abbreviated IQ (SB5) Form Patterns Position and Direction Visual-Spatial Processing Factor Index (SB5) Broad Math (WJ-III-NU) Mean 9.26 8.49 9.78 99.65 91.82 10.05 9.63 98.69 98.43 Standard Deviation 2.55 2.26 2.60 13.65 10.92 2.35 2.53 11.62 12.60

Note. Composite/combined variables are indicated by bold typeface. #=109

Correlation A correlation analysis was employed, using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r), to determine if there was a relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematics achievement. The results of the analysis suggested a statistically significant relationship between participants' scores on the visual-spatial measures of both the SB5 and the WISC-IV and their Broad Math score on the WJ-III125

NU (see table 4.2). In addition, using Cohen's (1998) conventions, the relationships between the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and SB5 and the Broad Math of the WJ-III-NU demonstrated a medium effect size. The relatively large correlations (r > 0.70) between the Block Design subtest, the Matrix Reasoning subtest, the Picture Completion subtest and the Combined WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite, as well as the moderately large correlations between the Form Patterns subtest, the Position and Direction subtest and the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor suggested a notable amount of overlap. The large correlations among these variables were not unexpected, as the combined/factor scores are the result of combining the respective subtests. In addition, using Cohen's conventions there was a large correlation [r (109) = .54] between the visual-spatial measures of SB5 and WISC-IV. Table 4.2 Correlations
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Block Design (WISC-IV) 2. Matrix Reasoning (WISC-IV) .46** 3. Picture Completion (WISC-IV) .30** .34** 4. WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Comp. .78** .77** .73** 5. Form Patterns (SB5) .52** .23* .30** .47** 6. Position and Direction (SB5) .35** .28** .30** .42** 7. SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor (SB5) .53** .32** .37** .54** 8. Broad Math (WJ-III-NU) .39** .27** .21** .38** 9. Abbreviated IQ (SB5) .32** .44** .38** .50** Note. The significance levels are based on uncorrected probabilities V < 0 . 0 5 ; **p< 0.001 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

.31** .79** .34** .24*

.83** .42** .30**

.47** .33**

.50**

Multiple Regression A sequential multiple regression was used to determine if the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and the SB5 predicted mathematics achievement on the WJIII-NU (as measured by the Broad Math Cluster score). The previous correlation analysis suggested a notable degree of overlap between the visual-spatial subtests and the combined composite/factor scores of both the WISC-IV and SB5. While the larger 126

correlations were below .90, which would strongly suggest the potential for multicollinearity, caution is warranted when including two or more variables with bivariate correlations greater than .70 in a multiple regression (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Given the potential for multicollinearity and singularity, as well as the researcher's desire to look at the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 and WISC-IV in totality, the researcher chose to use the composite/factor scores for the final analysis (WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite; SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor; SB5 Abbreviated IQ; WJ-III-NU Broad Math). As the data were previously screened for outliers and violations of normality, this process was not repeated. An examination of residual scatter plots did not suggest any violations of normality, linearity or homoscedasticity. An examination of the DurbinWatson statistic suggested independence of errors (Durbin-Watson = 1.70). After the initial regression, the data were examined for outliers in the solution; no standardized residuals greater than z = 3.00 from the mean were found. No evidence of potential multicollinearity was found in an examination of tolerance, condition index or eigenvalues. IQ significantly predicted mathematics achievement [R2= .24, adjusted R2 = .23; F ( l , 107) = 33.59, MSE = 121.98,;? < .001]. In addition, participants' visual-spatial composite/factor scores on WISC-IV and SB5 accounted for a statistically significant amount of the variance (11%) in participants' Broad Math scores over and above IQ (see table 4.3). Finally, the foil model, including IQ, SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor, and WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite was significant [R2= .35, adjusted R2= .33; F (3,105) = 18.62, MSE = 106.62,/ < .001]. This suggested that holding IQ constant across all participants,

127

visual-spatial processing accounted for a significant amount of the variance in mathematical achievement. While the visual-spatial composite/factor scores did account for a significant amount of the variance, there are some concerns regarding practical significance. Based on Cohen's conventions for effect size [where R2=f2l (1 +f2)] in a multiple regression (small = 0.02; medium = 0.13; large = 0.26), a change in (A) R of 0.11 demonstrated a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). The regression coefficients and significance tests for the full model (see table 4.4) indicated the slope of IQ-SB5 and the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor were significantly different from zero. Table 4.4 provides the coefficients and significance tests for the reduced model. From an analysis of the individual predictors, it appears IQ was the most important predictor, followed by the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor. Given its relatively small and nonsignificant /? weight, the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite appeared to be the least important predictor in the model. An additional sequential multiple regression, with the removal of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite variable, was used to further evaluate the importance of the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor over and above a participants IQ. The full model that included IQ and the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor, was significant [R2 = .35, adjusted R2 = .33; F (2,106) = 28.18, MSE = 105.62,/? < .001]. In addition, the change in R2 was significant [AR2 = .11, AF(1, 106) = \7.57,p< .001]. This analysis further supported the lack of importance of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite in the full model. From these results, it can be concluded that visual-spatial processing does significantly predict mathematics achievement over and above a participant's IQ. In addition, only the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 were statistically significant in the

128

model. This suggested the WISC-IV was not a useful predictor of a participant's mathematical achievement. Table 4.3 R Change and Change Statistics AR2 Model .24 Reduced (10) Full .11 (10, SB5, wise -IV)

dfl 1 2

df2 107 105

AF 33.59** 8.71**

Note. A= change; dependent variable = Broad Math score on the WJ-III-NU **p<.001

Table 4.4 Coefficients and Significance Tests for the Reduced and Full Models Model b Std. Error fi Reduced (10) Intercept 46.67** 9.00 Abbreviated 10 (AIO-SB5) .56** .10 .49 Full (10. SB5. WISC-IV) Intercept 21.50* 10.37 Abbreviated IQ (AIQ-SB5) .43** .11 .37 WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite .01 .10 .01 SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor .37** .10 .34
Note. Dependent variable = Broad Math score on the WJ-III-NU *p<.05, **p<-001

Logistic Regression Two sequential logistic regressions were utilized to determine which measure of visual-spatial processing (SB5; WISC-IV) was the better predictor of a participant with poor mathematics achievement over and above IQ. The previous multiple regressions identified which of the two visual-spatial measures was the better predictor of mathematical achievement examined continuously. The use of the logistic regressions
allowed for a clearer link between analysis and practice. Dichotomizing the dependent

variable allowed for the visual-spatial processing measures to predict students with poor mathematical performance. Identifying the best predictor was important because it indicated which visual-spatial measure (WISC-IV; SB5) can more accurately be used to 129

identify students with poor achievement in mathematics. Additionally, this may in turn provide enhanced accuracy in the assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities in the area of mathematics, above the understanding of the statistically significant predicative relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematics achievement found by the previous multiple regression. As the data were previously screened for univariate outliers, multivariate outliers and normality, this process was not repeated for the logistic regression analysis. A dichotomous variable was created based on a participant's standardized score on the WJIII-NU. Participants who scored above the 25th percentile rank were placed in the adequate mathematical achievement category (coded as 0). Participants who scored at or below the 25th percentile rank were placed in the poor mathematical achievement category (coded as 1). In the current sample, 28 of the participants or 25.69% were placed in the poor mathematical achievement category. Previous research suggests students who score at the 25 percentile rank or below on mathematical achievement tests exhibited notable difficulty in mathematical performance (Geary, 1993; Geary, 2004; Mazzocco & Meyer, 2003; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 2007; Swanson & BeebeFrankenberger, 2004; Zeleke, 2004). Both sequential logistic regressions were analyzed for linearity in the logit using the Box-Tidwell approach prior to analysis; no significant (p < .001) model interaction terms were found (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Potential multicollinearity was examined in the previous multiple regression and no evidence of multicollinearity was found at that time.

130

SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor The first logistic regression analyzed the relationship between participants' scores on the Visual-Spatial Factor Index of the SB5 and participants' mathematical performance (as measured by participants' Broad Math score on the WJ-III-NU) while controlling for IQ (see table 4.1 for descriptive statistics). After the initial regression analysis, the data were screened for potential outliers in the solution. Two subjects were identified as potential outliers in the solution, with studentized residuals greater than +2.00 from the mean. However, after evaluating the results of the logistic regression with the potential outliers removed, the potential outliers did not exert strong influence on the results and were not eliminated. IQ significantly predicted whether or not a participant would score below the 25th percentile rank on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU (x2 (1) = 9.65, p < .05, Nagelkerke R = .13). In addition, SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing score significantly contributed to the prediction of mathematical performance (difference ^ (1) = 5.15,p < .05,) suggesting a participant's SB5 visual-spatial score can predict mathematical achievement over and above IQ (see table 4.6). Together IQ and the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor score significantly predicted category, ^ 2 (2) = 14.81,/? < .05 Nagelkerke R2 - . 19. The Deviance Chi-Square for the full model was significant (-2LL = 109.40, p<. 05). The full model (IQ and SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor) correctly predicted 72.5% of all cases; which was an increase from the reduced model (IQ) that correctly predicted 71.6% of all cases. In addition, the full model correctly predicted 14.3% of the participants in the poor mathematical performance category and 92.6% in the adequate

131

mathematical performance category. In the reduced model, 7.1% were correctly predicted in the poor mathematical performance category and 93.8% in the adequate mathematical performance category. The odds ratios for both IQ and SB5 Visual-Spatial were significant (see table 4.6). In addition, using the equation (rj2 = (f/cf+4; where d = ln(odds ratio)/l.81), reported in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), odds ratios can be converted into eta squared values (ff) which can be interpreted as a measure of the proportion of the overall variability attributed to an independent variable (Myers & Well, 2003). Using Cohen's (1988) conventions, the eta squared values for the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor odds ratio (77 2= .0002) demonstrates a small effect size. Both predictors appeared to be relatively equal in strength, which suggested that as a participants' IQ or SB5 scores increase the chances of being in the lower 25 percentile rank are .95 times the odds for students with an IQ or SB5 score one point lower. The results indicated the SB5 VisualSpatial Processing Factor can predict mathematical achievement over and above IQ; however, given the small amount of variance accounted for, practical significance may be tenuous. This may mean the use of the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor as a diagnostic tool for poor mathematical performance is potentially not pragmatic, because it appears other factors appear to account for a greater amount of variance. Table 4.5 Model Statistics Nagelkerke Variable B1 Abbreviated SB5 IQ .13 SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor .19
*p<.05, **p<.001

-ILL 114.57 109.81

Model Chi-Square 9.65* 14.81**

A Chi-Square 5.15*

132

Table 4.6 Model Parameters Variable Abbreviated SB5 IQ SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor Constant
*p < .05,

Log Odds Ratio -0.05* -0.05* 8.32*

S.E. 0.02 0.02 2.63

Wald 4.85 4.79 9.99

Odds Ratio 0.95 0.95 4110.45

WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite The second logistic regression analyzed the relationship between participants' scores on the combined WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite (the combined and linear transformed participant score on the Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Completion subtests) and participants mathematical performance (as measured by participants' Broad Math score on the WJ-III-NU) while controlling for participants' IQ (see table 4.1 for descriptive statistics). Results of a preliminary logistic regression failed to identify any potential outliers in the solution (indicated by studentized residuals greater than 2.00 from the mean). A participant's WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite significantly contributed to the prediction of mathematical performance over and above IQ (difference/2 (1) = 3.95, p < .05,) suggesting that a participant's WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite can predict mathematical achievement while controlling for IQ (see table 4.8). Together IQ and the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Processing Composite significantly predicted poor mathematics performance/ (2) = 13.60,/? < .001, Nagelkerke R2=.\7. The Deviance Chi-Square for the full model was significant (-2LL = 110.61,/) < .05). The full model (IQ and WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite) correctly predicted 73.4 % of all cases, which was an increase from the reduced model (IQ). In addition, the full model correctly predicted 17.9% of the participants in the poor mathematical 133

performance category and 92.6% in the adequate mathematical performance category. The reduced model correctly predicted 7.1 % of the participants in the poor mathematical performance category and 93.8% in the adequate mathematical performance category. The odds ratio for WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite was significant (see table 4.8). ). In addition, using the equation (q2= d2/d2+4; where d = ln(odds ratio)/l.81), reported in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), odds ratios can be converted into eta squared values (rj2) which can be interpreted as a measure of the proportion of the overall variability attributed to an independent variable (Myers & Well, 2003). Using Cohen's (1988) conventions, the eta squared values for the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite odds ratio (r/ 2= .0001) demonstrates a small effect size. Both predictors appear to be relatively equal in strength, suggesting as a participants' IQ or WISC-IV score increases the chances of being in the lower 25th percentile are .96 times the odds for students with an IQ or WISC-IV score one point lower. The results of the sequential logistic regression suggested the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite can predict mathematics achievement over and above IQ; however, given the small amount of variance accounted for by the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite, there may be practical significance concerns. This may mean the use of the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite measure as a diagnostic tool for poor mathematical performance may not be useful in clinical or k-12 school settings, because other factors appear to account for a greater amount of variance. Table 4.7 Model Statistics Nagelkerke Variable R2 -2LL Abbreviated SB5 IQ .13 114.56 WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite .17 110.61
*p < .05,**p<.001

Model Chi-Square 9.65* 13.60**

A Chi-Square 3.95*

134

Table 4.8 Model Parameters Variable Abbreviated SB5 IQ WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite Constant
*p < .05

Log Odds Ratio -0.05 -0.04* 6.84*

S.E. 0.03 0.02 2.34

Wald 3.31 3.78 8.54

Odds Ratio 0.96 0.96 935.02

Comparison of the SB 5 and the WISC-IV To identify which measure of visual-spatial processing (SB5; WISC-IV) was the better predictor of mathematical achievement, the -2 Log likelihoods and variance accounted for (Nagelkerke R2) in the final models were compared. In comparing the overall models, that included IQ, both visual-spatial measures produced statistically significant (p < .001) % statistics (see table 4.9). The SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor showed the least amount of error and accounted for the largest amount of variance (SB5: -2LL = 109.40,/? < .001; Nagelkerke R2 = .19); however, the difference between the two final models was small (WISC-IV: -2LL = 110.61,/? < .001; Nagelkerke R2 = .17). While the comparison indicated the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor was the better predictor, there was little notable difference between the two measures ability to predict poor mathematical performance. In addition to a comparison of the -2 Log likelihoods and Nagelkerke R2, to more clearly identify the better individual predictor of mathematics achievement, an examination of the odds ratios of both logistic regressions was performed (see table 4.10). Both odds ratios were significant In addition, the eta squared values for the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor odds ratio (rj2= .0002) and for the WISC-IV VisualSpatial Composite odds ratio {n2 = .0001) both demonstrate a small effect size. The results indicated .02% of the total variance is attributed to the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor 135

and .01% of the total variance is attributed to the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite in their respective models. The eta squared values support, the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor contributed slightly more variance; however, both appeared to lack practical significance as diagnostic tools for poor mathematical achievement. Table 4.9 Comparison of Models Variables SB5andIQ WISC-IV and 10
**p< .001

Nagelkerke it 0.19 0.17

-2LL 109.42 110.61

Model Chi-Square 14.81** 13.60**

Table 4.10 Model Parameters of Both the SB5 and WISC-IV Log Odds Variable Ratio S.E. Abbreviated SB5IQ -0.05 0.03 WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite -0.04* 0.02 Constant 6.84* 2.34 Abbreviated SB5 IQ -0.05* 0.02 SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor -0.05* 0.02 Constant 8.32* 2.63
*p < .05

Wald 3.31 3.78 8.54 4.85 4.79 9.99

Odds Ratio 0.96 0.96 935.02 0.95 0.95 4110.45

Summary The data were subjected to an analysis for violations of normality, linearity and outliers. The correlation analysis suggested a significant relationship between the visualspatial measures of the SB5 and WISC-IV and the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. A multiple regression analysis identified visual-spatial processing could predict mathematical achievement over and above IQ; however, given the small amount of variance accounted for, there were practical significance concerns. Two sequential logistic regressions were employed to determine which visual-spatial measure (SB5 or WISC-IV) was the better predictor of poor mathematical achievement. The results of the logistic regressions indicated both measures could significantly predict poor 136

mathematical performance; however, the difference between the two measures was minimal. Finally, given the small amount of variance accounted for by both measures, the results suggested questionable practical significance in the identification of students' with poor mathematical performance with visual-spatial measures of both the SB5 and WISCIV. The proceeding chapter (Chapter V) will provide a discussion of the results found in the study.

137

CHAPTERV DISCUSSION Discussion of Results The final chapter will address the implications of the results found in Chapter IV. In addition, the chapter will discuss potential areas of future research and the limitations of the current study. Finally, the chapter will concluded by revisiting the significance of the study. The primary purpose of this study was to examine which measure of visual-spatial processing, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), was the better predictor of poor mathematical performance as measured by the Broad Math Cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement-Normative Update (WJ-III-NU). Participants' scores on the SB5 Abbreviated IQ measure were utilized to determine visual-spatial processing's unique contribution to mathematical performance over and above IQ. To address each research question, data were obtained from 109 students in grades 6-8 at several Midwestern and Western locations in the United States. Participants were administered: 1) The Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture completion subtests of the WISC-IV; 2) The Form Patterns and Position and Direction subtests of the SB5; 3) The Calculation, Fluency and Applied Problems subtests of the WJ-III-NU. Visual-Spatial Processing's Relationship to Mathematical Achievement The results of the correlation analysis indicated there was a medium positive relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematical achievement. The results confirmed previous research that has found a statistically significant relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematics (Ansari et al., 2003; Assel, Landry, Swank, 138

Smith & Steelman, 2003; Busse, Berninger, Smith & Hildebrand, 2001; Cornoldi, Venneri, Marconato, Molin & Montinari, 2003; Geary, 1993; Geary & Hoard, 2003; Hartje, 1987; Mazzocco, 2005; Reuhkala, 2001; Swanson & Jerman, 2006). However, the moderate effect sizes suggested, while there was indeed a statistically significant relationship, that relationship was not as strong as the researcher would have hoped given the previous research in this area. In examining all variables that measured visual-spatial processing (WISC-IV; SB5), the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor had the largest correlation to the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU; suggesting the visual-spatial processing measures of the SB5 were the most related to mathematical achievement when compared to the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV. Further, of the three WISC-IV subtests purported to be measures of visual-spatial processing, the Block Design subtest had the strongest correlation with the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. The statistically significant correlation between the WISC-IV Block Design subtest and the mathematics measures of the WJ-III-NU was in line with previous research that has found a significant positive relationship between the Block Design subtest of the WISC-IV and mathematical performance (Carroll, 1993; Cornoldi et al., 2003; Fuchs et al, 2005; Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999; Lee, Ng, Ng, & Lim, 2004). In addition, there was a moderate to large correlation between the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor and participants combined Block Design (BD), Matrix Reasoning (MR), and Picture Completion (PC) score. The moderately large correlation suggested that combined, the three subtests (BD, MR and PC) were related to the SB5 VisualSpatial Processing Factor. Additionally, given the ample specificity of the Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Completion subtests at all ages (> 25%) it suggests

139

individually they may measure a specific construct distinct from the hypothesized "g" or general intelligence (Sattler & Dumont, 2004). Further, if the three combined subtests are related to the Visual-Spatial Processing Factor of the SB5 (which visual-spatial subtests demonstrate ample and adequate specificity), and their specificity indicates the subtests measure distinct constructs from "g", there is support for a visual-spatial factor/composite within WISC-IV as first suggested by Keith et al. (2006). Future research may wish to further explore if these three combined subtests are a distinct measure of visual-spatial processing. The results of the correlation analysis found an additional notable correlation with the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. Of all variables included in the analysis, the SB5 Abbreviated IQ had the strongest positive correlation with the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU. The notable correlation indicated perhaps one, both or the combination of the subtests used in the SB5 abbreviated measure of IQ (Object Series/ Matrices and Vocabulary) has a stronger relationship with a participant's mathematical functioning then any of the SB5 or WISC-IV visual-spatial processing measures. This finding may indicate either additional psychological processes or general intelligence (g) is more related to mathematical achievement than visual-spatial processing. Future research with the SB5 should explore which of the two Abbreviated IQ subtests is most related to mathematical achievement. The Predictive Ability of the Visual-Spatial Measures of the SB 5 and WISC-IV The multiple regression demonstrated that visual-spatial processing can significantly predict mathematical achievement over and above IQ. The SB5 VisualSpatial Processing Factor was a better predictor of a student's score on the Broad Math

140

Cluster of WJ-III-NU than the combination of the BD, MR, and PC subtests of the WISC-IV. Of the three variables, the SB5 Abbreviated IQ was the best predictor of a student's score on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU accounting for notably more variance (24%) than the visual-spatial measures of both the SB5 and WISC-IV (11%) combined (accounting for participants IQ). It is important to note that given the less than adequate specificity of the Position and Direction subtest of the SB5, there may have been some confounding among the variables in the multiple regression. Because the Position and Direction subtest is not a inherently distinct measure from "g", it may be that including both the Abbreviated IQ and the Position and Direction subtest (as part of the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor/Composite) impacted the attenuation of R in final regression model that included IQ, the SB5 Visual-Spatial Factor and the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial composite. Thereby clouding the results of the multiple regression to some degree. One implication of the results is related to the identification of which psychological process is the most highly predictive of students' mathematical achievement. Visual-spatial processing was related to students' mathematical achievement, suggesting a student with more developed visual-spatial processing abilities performs better in the area of mathematics regardless of their IQ; however, given the relatively small amount of variance accounted for by visual-spatial processing, the practical utility of both measures as diagnostic tools for poor mathematical performance is questionable. The amount of variance that was left unexplained by the combined measures of visual-spatial processing is sizeable (65%). That would indicate some other processing area or cognitive ability may be a better predictor of mathematical

141

achievement. Furthermore, perhaps it is a student's overall cognitive ability that is the best predictor of how well a student will do mathematically and visual-spatial processing is too narrow of a processing area to be useful in predicting a student's mathematical abilities. Similar to the correlation analysis, the SB5 Abbreviated IQ appeared to be a more important predictor of mathematical achievement than the visual-spatial measures used in the current study. The SB5 Abbreviated IQ with its two subtests (Object Series/Matrices and Vocabulary) explained more variance than both measures of visualspatial processing combined. This suggested that an abbreviated measure of intelligence may be a better predictor of mathematical achievement than measures of visual-spatial processing. The results of this study were consistent with previous research that has found measures of fluid reasoning and comprehension-knowledge/crystallized reasoning were moderate predictors of mathematical performance on the mathematical achievement tests of WJ-III (Floyd, Evans, McGrew, 2003). This suggests that while previous research supports the importance of visual-spatial processing in mathematical achievement, general intelligence may be considerably more important. In addition, the literature identifies additional areas of cognitive processing that are related to mathematical achievement and maybe significant predictors of mathematical performance. Prior research has found additional cognitive processes such as attention, working memory, short-term memory, long-term (semantic) memory, speed of processing and phonological processing were related to mathematical achievement (Floyd, et al., 2003; Fuchs et al., 2006; Fuchs et al, 2005; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent & Numtee, 2007; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 2007; Swanson, 2006; Swanson & Beebe-

142

Frankenberger, 2004; Swanson, Jerman, and Zheng, 2008). The results of the current study suggested, that while visual-spatial processing did appear to be a statistically significant predictor of mathematical achievement, there are other cognitive areas (processing, general intelligence) that may prove more important. Further research into additional processing areas (working memory, speed of processing, etc.), general intelligence and mathematical achievement is needed to fully articulate which area of cognitive functioning is the best predictor of mathematical performance. The results of the regression analysis may demonstrate some limited practical significance concerns regarding the utility of both measures as predictors of mathematical performance in a clinical application; however, the multiple regression did add to the theoretical understanding of the relationship between visual-spatial processing and mathematical achievement. The visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and SB5 accounted for 11% of the variance over and above a participant's IQ. In other words, irrespective of a participants IQ, the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and SB5 were able to account for a significant amount of the variance in mathematical performance. This finding may add theoretical support to the importance of visual-spatial processing in mathematical performance. Comparison of the SB 5 and WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Measures In the literature, students are often defined as having poor mathematical achievement if they score at or below the 25th percentile on mathematics achievement tests (Geary, 1993; Geary, 2004; Mazzocco & Meyer, 2003; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich & Early, 2007; Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004; Zeleke, 2004). To tie the current study with previous research, participants were separated into two dichotomous groups to

143

compare the predictive ability of the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 and WISC-IV. Participants who scored at or below the 25th percentile rank on the Broad Math Cluster of the WJ-III-NU were placed in the poor mathematics achievement category and students who scored greater than the 25 percentile rank were placed in the adequate mathematical achievement category. Two separate sequential logistic regressions were employed and compared to determine which measure of visual-spatial processing was the better predictor of poor mathematics achievement accounting for the effects of IQ. The results suggested both the SB5 Visual-Spatial Processing Factor and the WISC-IV Visual-Spatial Composite significantly predicted mathematical performance over and above IQ. Meaning regardless of a student's IQ, both measures of visual-spatial processing were able to predict whether or not a student demonstrated poor mathematical skills. However, further examination suggested that while the measures were both statistically significant, the amount of variance accounted for by both measures was small. The eta squared values indicated a small effect size for both the WISC-IV and SB5 in their respective models. In comparison of the final models, that included IQ and visual-spatial processing, the SB5 demonstrated the least amount of error and accounted for the most variance. The odds ratios and eta squared values for the visual-spatial measures of the SB5 and WISC-IV in their respective models were not notably different, suggesting little practical difference. This suggests the two measures were not notably different in their ability to predict mathematical performance. The comparison of the results of both logistic regressions answered the main research question of this study, determining that neither of the visual-

144

spatial measures of the SB5 or the WISC-IV were decisively better in identifying poor mathematical performance. One implication for these results is that neither measure of visual-spatial processing appeared to be a practical tool for use in the prediction of poor mathematical performance. The results suggested, due to the relatively small amount of variance accounted for, by both measures, the practical utility of the two visual-spatial measures as diagnostic tools for poor mathematical performance was minimal. In addition, the relatively minimal difference between the two visual-spatial measures, as predictors of poor mathematical performance, suggested neither measure was notably better than the other. The lack of a clear difference between the two instruments and small amount of variance accounted for may have implications for how specific learning disabilities (SLD) are defined and assessed in the practice of school psychology. Again it should be emphasized that while, the study suggests limited practical difference between the visual-spatial measures of the WISC-IV and SB5 in the prediction of mathematical performance, both were able to statistically predicted the category of mathematical performance over and above a student's IQ. Indicating regardless of a student's overall cognitive ability (i.e. IQ) both visual-spatial measures can predict if a student is struggling in mathematics. This finding may add to the theoretical understanding of the relationship between visual-spatial processing and students who struggle in mathematics; identifying the importance of visual-spatial processing in mathematical achievement over and above a student's level of intelligence.

145

Further Implications for the Current Study The results of the current study found visual-spatial processing was a statistically significant predictor of mathematical achievement over and above a student's level of intelligence. However, the results of the analysis suggested both measures of visualspatial processing may have limited practical utility in identifying poor mathematical performance. Given the small amount of variance accounted for by visual-spatial processing in mathematical achievement, it may be that defining a SLD, particularly a math disability, as a visual-spatial processing disorder may not be important. Furthermore, if state departments of education do not assess for deficits in processing, then defining a SLD as a processing disorder may not be inherently useful. As identified in the previous literature review, little has changed in regards to the definition of a SLD since its conceptualization by Samuel Kirk in the 1960's and introduction into special education law in the 1970's. In an unpublished recent review of how states currently define a SLD, this researcher found that 49 of the 51 states (including the District of Columbia) use the federal definition of a SLD or use the term "processing disorder" in their definition (Clifford, 2008). In this review, the only two states that did not use the term "processing disorder" were Kentucky and Louisiana. Although the wording used by both states, " acquisition, organization, or expression" (Kentucky) and "to acquire, comprehend, or apply" (Louisiana) suggested similar terminology to the definition of psychological processing (i.e. the cognitive abilities that allow the use of language, attention, memory, complex problem solving, higher order thinking and perception in academic and non-academic tasks) (Gerring, & Zimbardo,

146

2002; Kentucky Administrative Regulations, p. 8,2007; Louisiana Administrative Code: Chapter 28, 2008, p. 59). States adherence to the federal definition has two possible implications. First, if the federal definition is the accepted definition, then more research should be conducted regarding psychological processing and learning disabilities (particularly mathematics). Second, if psychological processing is not considered a valid part of a SLD then an evolution of how a SLD is defined is needed. Support for a change in how a SLD is defined may come from the substantial degree of difference between the federal and states' SLD definition and how it is operationalized for identification purposes. Currently, how a SLD is identified has undergone a substantial change and state departments of education appear to be moving away from the IQ-achievement discrepancy model. The federal regulations allow a student to be diagnosed with a SLD utilizing a response to intervention framework (RTI) that is inclusive of a comprehensive evaluation (Federal Register, 2006). The federal regulations do not explicitly state as part of a comprehensive evaluation, for a SLD, that a student must be administered instruments that assess cognitive processing. Rather, the regulations note a student should be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, which could include measures of general intelligence, academic performance, communication, motor functioning, health, vision, hearing, and social and emotional functioning (Federal Register, 2006). Some proponents of the link between neuropsychological functioning and SLD identification maintain best practices for SLD identification should include measures of psychological processing as part of a comprehensive evaluation (Hale, Flanagan & Naglieri, 2008). However, as the current research suggests, full conceptualization of the

147

relationship between psychological processing and SLDs may not be complete particularly in the area of mathematics, and further exploration may be needed in-order to consider it a valid component in SLD determination. In a recent unpublished review of how states operationalize SLDs, only one state (Maine) noted the use of processing in how a learning disability was identified (Clifford, 2008). The remaining states required a RTI model, a discrepancy model with or without an RTI model, a discrepancy model in combination to a RTI model, or a pattern of strengths and weakness with or without an RTI model (Clifford, 2008). This indicates that few states adhere to the definition of a SLD and specifically look for processing deficits in the identification of learning disabilities. With few states looking for processing components in SLD identification defining a SLD as a processing disorder does not appear to be pragmatic. An additional implication for this study may be concerned with where the majority of school psychologists' time should be spent. Should school psychologists spend a significant amount of time using instruments that have shown, at times, a somewhat tenuous link between psychological processing and mathematics achievement to determine a SLD; or should school psychologists focus the majority of their efforts in trying to help students prior to a point where they begin to have notable struggles in mathematics? The results of the current study suggested, perhaps, school psychologists' time might be better spent through incorporating an RTI-mathematics-SLD model based on early screening and intervention, rather than investigating learning difficulties through processing disorders. There has been substantial research in the area of RTI, early intervention and reading. Only recently, has there been an increase in the research with RTI as a component of early mathematics SLD identification and intervention.

148

There is research that has found a link between early screening and the prediction of a SLD in mathematics in later grades. Mazzocco and Thompson (2005) in their longitudinal study followed 226 kindergartners through third grade. The researchers found they were able to predict with 80-83% accuracy students who had a potential SLD in mathematics from their results on early screening curriculum based measurements (CBM). Fuchs et al. (2007) in their longitudinal study followed 225 students from the beginning of first grade through the end of second grade. Fuchs et al. (2007) found by using CBM measures of mathematics they were able to predict those students who had a potential disability in the area of mathematics. In addition, one recent study on the efficacy of early screening and intervention in the area of mathematics was conducted by Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, and Chavez (2008). The study consisted of first and second grade students placed in a RTI model tier two intervention that involved 4560 minutes of small group tutoring in mathematics. The results of the study were mixed. The authors found when study participants were compared to a control group there was a significant increase in second grade students' scores on a test of early mathematics at the end of the intervention cycle, but did not find significant increase in first grade students scores (Bryant, et al. 2008). The results of the noted studies indicate research in the area of mathematics RTI, early intervention, and SLD has been conducted, but substantially more is needed. Limitations There are three principle limitations for the current study that should be addressed. The first limitation is in regard to the sample used in the study. The size of the sample in the current study was relatively small (N = 109). While the sample size was

149

adequate to meet predetermined power requirements, a larger sample size may have provided increased power. In addition, the sample used in the study may have limited generalizability. The sampling procedure was not random and only students who were motivated enough to engage in the required tasks were participants. Furthermore, participants were from Midwest and Western communities and in a specific grade range (6-8) limiting generalizability to other areas of the country and age groups. A second limitation may be fatigue affects. While the evaluator attempted to keep the pace of administration at a moderate tempo, to keep participants engaged, it is possible participants became fatigued towards the end of the testing session. This may have contributed to participants performing better at the beginning of testing session than at the end. In addition, while the administration order of the WISC-IV and SB5 varied, the variation was not random or specifically accounted for. The lack of random variation may have impacted the study's results as fatigue set in with each participant. The final limitation of the current study relates to the administration of the visualspatial measures of both the WISC-IV and SB5. While both instruments utilize relatively different measures of visual-spatial processing, it may be that results were clouded by practice effects. So closely administering the subtests of both instruments may have allowed the participants to have some practice in performing tasks that involve visualspatial skills thereby possibly clouding some of the results. Future Research While the current study found students' mathematical functioning could be predicted by their visual-spatial processing abilities, the findings did seem to have questionable practical utility. Future research should explore which cognitive areas are

150

most related to mathematical achievement (fluid reasoning; crystallized knowledge; general intelligence etc.). Only through further examination of the link between cognitive processing and academic abilities can the utility of measures of processing in K-12 school settings be realized. In addition, future research in the area of early interventionRTI and mathematics SLD is needed. Fully conceptualizing how to best identify and intervene with students who have mathematic SLDs is critical to their future academic success. Importance of the Study The current study was concerned with the utility of the visual-spatial processing measures of the SB5 and WISC-IV as predictors of mathematical performance. The fundamental question the study addressed was the predicative relationship between the psychological processes of visual-spatial processing and poor mathematics performance. If the current definition of a SLD is centered on the idea a SLD is a disorder in a psychological process, then it is important research is conducted to identify which psychological processes are the most related to which areas of learning difficulties. If a clear link cannot be found between psychological processes and SLDs and states do not identify SLDs based on processing deficits, then a definition based on the conceptualization that a SLD is a disorder in a psychological process may be antiquated.

151

Appendix A IRB Approval

152

Office of Human Subjects Protection (605) 677-6184 (605) 677-3134 Fax The University of South Dakota.

March 23, 2007 Jordan Mulder The University of South Dakota Counseling aid Psychology in Education Project Title: PI: Level of Review; Date Approved: 100-07-049-Visual-spatial Processing and Mathematics Achievement: The Predictive Ability of the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fourth Edition Jordan Mulder Student PI: Eldon Clifford Exempt 1 Risk: No More than Minimal 3/22/2007

The proposal referenced above has received an Exempt review and approval via the procedures of the University of South Dakota Institutional Review Board 01. Annual Continuing Review is not required for the above Exempt study. However, when this study is completed you must submit a Closure Form to the IRB. You may close your study when you no longer have contact with the subject. Prior to initiation, promptly report to the IRB, any proposed changes or additions (e.g., protocol amendments/revised informed consents/ site changes, etc.) in previously approved human subject research activities. The forms to assist you in filing your: project closure, continuation, adverse/unanticipated event, project updates /amendments, etc. can be accessed at http://www.usd.edu/oorsch/compliance/applicationforms.cfm. If you have any questions, please contact me: lkorcusk(5),usd.edu or (605) 677-6184. Sincerely,

Lisa Korcuska Director-Office of Human Subjects Protection University of South Dakota Institutional Review Boards

The University of South Dakota IRBs operate in compliance with federal regulations and applicable laws and are registered with the Office for Human Subject Protections (OHRP) under FWA # 00002421.
414 Easl Clark Street Vermillion, SD 5 7 0 6 9 - 2 3 9 0 1 - 8 7 7 - C O YO T E S Fax: 605-677-6323 www.usd.edu

Appendix B Approval LettersfromParticipating Schools

154

Page 1 of2

Clifford, Eldon S From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject; Flag Status: Tracy Heiiman [tracy.heilman@ssccardinals.org] Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:57 PM Clifford, Eldon S Rozy Warder; John Laughhunn FW: USD student dissertation research at Middle Red

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Hi EldonYou have the green light. Please read Rozy's email below. Success! Now the hard work begins! Tracy

Tracy Heiiman Kennedy, Ph.D. Project Director Safe Schools/Healthy Students South Sioux City Community Schools (402) 412-2883 (712) 259-0808 ' fracy.heilman@ssccardinals.org

From: Rozy Warder Sent: Wednesday, March 14,2007 10:02 AM To: Tracy Heiiman Cc: John Laughhunn Subject: RE: USD student dissertation research at Middle As long as the student is not missing class time he can go ahead and start. I am sorry that it took so long, but generally the district doesn't allow this type of work to occur. This is the exception. Eldon and go ahead and get started. Please let Eldon know it is okay to begin. Rozanne Warder Student Services Director

Special Education, Talented and Gifted, At-risk Programs, Health Services, Safe Schools Healthy Students
South Sioux City Community Schools &outh Sioux City, NE From: Tracy Heiiman Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:09 PM To: Rozy Warder; John Laughhunn Subject: USD student dissertation research at Middle Importance: High Eldon Clifford has visited with Mr. Laughhunn and emailed me to say John was agreeable to Eldon coming in to his school during study halls to work with kids. You had previously told me to let you know when John was informed and if he was agreeable, to let you know to get the final approval. Eldon has his IRB approval and is eager to get to work. He is extremely grateful for the chance to collect data in SSC.

3/19/2007

Clifford, Eldon S
From: Seh't; To: Subject: Hi Eldon, I am sorry that it has taken so long to respond - I visited with Brad and Scott - they are ok with your proposal - we can talk about the details. I can buy some of the assessments if they are ones that you will perfer to use in our programs, I would like to visit with you on the phone - it has been so busy! I will be travelling to Aberdeen today and back tomorrow - I had a student at the school for the visually impaired that had a blow out and got suspended so I have been to Aberdeen and have been working on this student's program it has been all consuming - anyway I will catch up with you! I hope that things are going well - take good care. Klinette On Feb 20, 2007 08:24 AM, "Clifford, Eldon S" wrote: >Klinette, > > > >Good morning, I hope your weekend was good. > > > . >I was wondering if you and the district could help me out? I am experiencing some challenges finding a district around here that will >allow me to gather data for my dissertation, and was hopeful that I >could talk you and Brad into letting me gather a goodly chunk of it in >Newcastle. > > > >What it involves is giving 2 subtests of the SB5 (Position and >Direction; Form Board/ Form Patterns), three measures of the WISC-IV >(Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Picture completion) and 3 measures of >tfc* WJ-III (Calculation; Fluency; Applied Problems). In total, it takes >a little under 1 hour. > > > >I would be giving the battery to middle school students in 6th-8th >grades. I need about 106 students total; however, I understand that >Newcastle only has about 160-200 students (combined) in those grades. >It >would be unrealistic for me to think that I could obtain all of what I >need from Newcastle. Although the more I can get the less difficult it >would be for me in the long run. > > > >If you were to agree, I would send out permission forms/ consent forms >in the early fall of 07. I would of course emphasize that students and >parents are under no obligation to participate. In addition, I would >gather data at times that would not interfere with my school psych responsibilities or with students' core classes (say testing kids, >duying study hall, non-core classes, before/ after school, etc...). In >ad^ition, with your permission and parental consent I could also add >those measures when I test a student for a learning disability.
1

Klinette Brandon [brandonk@weston1.k12.wy.us] Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:07 PM Clifford, Eldon S Re: Hello and a request

> > >I would of course purchase all test protocols myself. In addition, I >think I remember someone saying that the district does not have the
>WJ-III so I would of course purchase that test kit myself (and the SB5 >if need b e ) . > > >

>While I know the district does not get much out of this I could provide >tOv each parent a summary of the results for their child and could >p'$bvide the district with a summary of my results, if desired. In >addition, if you were to help me out I would be willing to commit in >writing to at least three years with Newcastle if you decide you would >like me to stay, > > > >Please let me know what you think. > >
>

>Have great week! > > > >Eldon >

Page 1 of2

Clifford, Eldon S From: Sent: 10 To: Lentz, Jim [Jim.Lentz@pas.k12.mn.us] Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:27 AM Clifford, Eldon S

Subject: RE: permission If permissions are obtained, that would be fine by me. Jim Lentz

From: Clifford, Eldon S [mailto:Eldon,Clifford@usd.edu] Sent: Monday, March 12,2007 2:37 PM To: Lentz, Jim Subject: permission Mr. Lentz, My name is Eldon Clifford, I a doctoral student at the University of South Dakota. Mr. Lammers referred me to you. Your school psychologist, Renae, has agreed to assist me with some data collection for my dissertation. I am seeking your permission to allow her to do that The study looks at ability of the visual-spatial measures of the ? Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition ( Position and Direction; Form Patters/ Form Board) and the WISC-IV ( Block Design, Picture Complete and Matrix Reasoning) to identify middle school students with a potential disability in mathematics. To collect the data Renae would add on the subtest concurrently with her evaluation, and/ or ask a few students to see if the would be willing to participate (with parental permission). A total of 8-12 students would be evaluated over this and the next academic year (06-07; 07-08). The addition of the subtests to her current evaluation time would amount to an extra 15-20 min. After parental permission is received (by giving their signature on an informed consent form), the students would go through the following process:

Renae will explain the study to the child and have the child sign a form indicating she/he gives assent to participate. Renae will ask the child to complete a short demographic form that asks for age and ethnicity. First, the child will be asked to complete the abbreviated cognitive ability test of the StanfordBinet, Fifth Edition. Next, the child will be asked to complete the 2 visual spatial processing tests of the Stanford Binet Fifth, Edition (Position and Direction; Form Patterns). Then, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Picture completion). Finally, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (Calculation; Fluency; Applied Problems). The child may refuse to participate at any time with no penalties.
The child will only meet with the Renae 1 time and for less than 1 hour or the subtests would be

added concurrently with an evaluation. I am wondering if you would be willing to let Renae participate in this study at your middle school? If you have any questions I would be happy to further explain the study. Thank you for your time. Eldon Clifford M.S. NCC, NCSC

3/19/2007

Page 1 of 1

Clifford, Eldon S
From: Sent: To: Cc: Dave.Lammers [Dave.Lammers@swsc.org] Thursday, March 08, 2007 8:33 AM Clifford, Eldon S Jim Lentz; Renae Christensen

Subject: RE: classmate of Renae's

Hi Eldon - To have Renae assist you in collecting data is fine with me, but because the data will be coming from Pipestone Area Schools, I think that formal permission should come from Mr. Jim Lentz, Superintendent of Schools at PAS. His e-mail address is jim.lentz<a>pas.k12.mn.us. Good luck to you on your data collection project.

Director of Special Education SW/WC Service Cooperatives dave. lamme rs@swsc. org Phone: 507-825-5858 FAX: 507-825-4035

From: Clifford, Eldon S [mailto:Eldon.Clifford@usd.edu] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:03 AM To: Dave.Lammers Subject: classmate of Renae's Mr. Lammers, My name is Eldon Clifford, I contacted one of your school psychologists (Renae) and she stated you would be willing to let her aide me in collection of some data for my dissertation. Would it be possible to for you to send me an email saying that you are giving Renae permission to help me out? The institutional review board for USD requires some type of documentation for permission. If you have any questions regarding the study please contact me and I will be happy to answer them.

Thank you for you assistance. Eldon Clifford M.S. NCC, NCSC Doctoral Student School Psychology University of South Dakota

3/19/2007

Clifford, Eldon S
From: Sent: Tci! Cc: Subject: Eldon, Sorry for not responding a little earlier in the week. I am fine with Diana helping you out providing 1) she is comfortable with the extra time and work 2) it doesn't take time away from our schools and 3) she receives parental consent on all Students. It looks like you have addressed these below and I have recently discussed this with Diana where it doesn't appears that it would be a problem. Good Luck!
Joe Lenz

Joe.Lenz@k12.sd.us Friday, March 16, 2007 8:55 AM Clifford, Eldon S Diana.Holzer@k12.sd.us RE: A classmate of Diana

Director NWAS Educational Cooperative PO Box 35 Isabel, SD 57 633 joe.lenz@kl2.sd.us 605-466-2206 - Isabel 605-845-5880 - Mobridge

From: Clifford, Eldon S [mailto:Eldon.Clifford8usd.edu] Sent: Mon 3/12/2007 2:45 PM To: Lenz, Joe Cc: Diana Holzer Subject: A classmate of Diana

Mr. Lenz,

My name is Eldon Clifford, I a school psychology doctoral student at the University of South Dakota. Your school psychologist, Diana, has agreed to assist me with some data collection for my dissertation. I am seeking your permission to allow her to do that. The study looks at ability of the visual-spatial measures of the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition ( Position and Direction; Form Patters/ Form Board) and the WISC-IV ( Block Design, Picture Complete and Matrix Reasoning) to identify middle school students with a potential disability in mathematics. To collect the data Dina would add on the subtests concurrently with her evaluation, and/ or ask a few students to see if the would be willing to participate (with parental permission). A total of 8-15 students would be evaluated. The addition of the subtests to her current evaluation time would amount to an extra 15-20 min. After parental permission is received (by giving their signature on an informed consent form), the students would go through the following process:

* Diana will explain the study to the child and have the child sign a form indicating she/he gives assent to participate. * Diana will ask the child to complete a short demographic form that asks for age, birth date, gender, and ethnicity.

* First, the child will be asked to complete the abbreviated cognitive ability test of the StanfordBinet, Fifth Edition (2 subtests). * Next, the child will be asked to complete the 2 visual spatial processing tests of the Stanford Binet Fifth, Edition (Position and Direction; Form Board/ Form Patterns). * Then, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Picture Completion). * Finally, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (Calculation; Fluency; Applied Problems). * The child may refuse to participate at any time with no penalties. * The child will only meet with the Diana 1 time and for less than 1 hour, or the subtests would be added concurrently with an evaluation.

I am wondering if you would be willing to let Dina participate in this study? If you have any questions I would be happy to further explain the study.

Thank you for your time. ElSon Clifford M.S. NCC, NCSC

Langstraat, Deb L
From: Sent: To: Subject: Clifford, Eldon S Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:25 PM Langstraat, Deb L FW: Dr. Jordan Mulder

From: Dave Forbush [mailto:david.forbush@cache.kl2.ut.us] Sent: Fri 10/5/2007 7:04 PM To: Jordan.mulder@cache.kl2.ut.us Cc: Clifford, Eldon S Subject: FW: Dr. Jordan Mulder Dr. Mulder, Please see the message below from one of your prior students. It appears that his request for your time would connect with much of your day to day work, and where it doesn't it includes a small number of students. With regard to this request, if you feel that you can assist Clifford without substantial impact to your day to day services, please proceed. Mentoring others is good stimulation. Enjoy! Dave

David Forbush Ph.D. Director of Special Education Services Cache County School District (435) 792-7631 david.forbush(S)cache.k12.ut.us

From: Clifford, Eldon S [mailto:Eldon.Clifford@usd.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:30 PM To: david.forbush@cache.kl2.ut.us Subject: Dr. Jordan Mulder

Mr. Forbush, My name is Eldon Clifford. I am a doctoral student at the University of South Dakota and a school psychology intern in
Newcastle, WY. A school psychologist with your district Dr. Jordan Mulder referred me to you.

I am a former student of Dr. Mulder and he has graciously agreed to assist me with some data collection for my dissertation. I am seeking your permission to allow him to do that. The study looks at ability of the visual-spatial measures of the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition (Position and Direction; Form Patters/ Form Board) and the WISC-IV (Block Design, Picture Complete and Matrix Reasoning) to identify middle school students with a potential disability in mathematics. To collect the data Dr. Mulder would add on the subtest concurrently with his evaluation, and/ or ask a few students to see if the would be willing to participate (with parental permission). A total of 8-12 students would be evaluated over this academic year (07-08). The addition of the subtests to his current evaluation time would amount to an extra 15-20 min.
l

The study has received Institutional Review Board and dissertation committee approval. After parental permission is received (by giving their signature on an informed consent form), the students would go through the following process: Dr. Mulder will explain the study to the child and ask the child sign a form indicating she/he gives assent to participate. Dr. Mulder will ask the child to complete a short demographic form that asks for age grade, gender and ethnicity. First, the child will be asked to complete the abbreviated cognitive ability test of the Stanford- Binet, Fifth Edition. Next, the child will be asked to complete the 2 visual spatial processing tests of the Stanford Binet Fifth, Edition (Position and Direction; Form Patterns). Then, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Block Design; Matrix Reasoning; Picture completion). Finally, the child will be asked to complete 3 tests of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (Calculation; Fluency; Applied Problems). The child may refuse to participate at any time with no penalties. The child will only meet with the Dr. Mulder 1 time and for approximately 1 hour or the subtests would be added concurrently with an evaluation. I am wondering if you would be willing to let Dr. Mulder participate in this study at your middle school? If you have any questions I would be happy to further explain the study. Thank you for your time. Eldon Clifford M.S. NCC, NCSC School Psychology Intern Weston County SD#1 Newcastle, WY ecliffor@usd.edu
307-746-3107 (h) 307-629-0349 (w)

Langstraat, Deb L
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Deb Please, see attachement for project update/ addendum. Eldon Clifford Clifford, Eldon S Monday, November 05, 2007 6:40 PM Langstraat, Deb L FW: 4-FORM--ProjectUpdateAmendmentForm.doc

From: Frank.Seiler@kl2.sd.us [mailto:Frank.Seiler@kl2.sd.us] Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 9:41 AM To: Clifford, Eldon S Subject: I grant permission to Diana Holzer, school psychologist for our district, to assist Eldon Clifford, USD graduate student, with his dissertation by conducting some testing of middle school students' visual-spatial ability and math achievement. Sincerely, Frank Seiler Superintendent Timber Lake School District 20-3

Appendix C Demographic Information Testing Date Grade Age Birth Date Gender: Male Female

Language you are Most Comfortable With Language Spoken at Home Ethnicity (circle all that may apply): White Non-Hispanic African American Native American/ Alaskan Native Hispanic Asian/ Pacific Islander

I do not wish to disclose my ethnicity Highest Grade Completed by Parent or Guardian: Less than High School Some High School High School College

I wish not to disclose the highest grade completed by my parent or guardian

165

References Alfonso, V. C , Flanagan, P. D. & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-HornCarroll theory of test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan and P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests and Issues (2nd ed., pp. 185-202). New York; Guilford. Ansari, D., Donlan, C , Thomas, M.S. C, Ewing, S.A., Peen, T. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2003). What makes counting count? Verbal and visuo-spatial contributions to typical and atypical number development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 50-62. Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P., Smith, E. K. & Steelman, L. M. (2003). Precursors to mathematical skills: Examining the roles of visual-spatial skills, executive processes, and parenting factors. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 2738. Augustyniak, K, Murphy, J. & Phillips, K. D. (2004). Psychological perspectives in assessing mathematics learning needs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32, 277-286. Baddeley, A. (1996). The fractionation of working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 93, 13468-13472. Badian, A. N. (2001). Phonological and orthographic processing: Their roles in reading prediction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 179-201.

166

Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and psychometrics. (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 1). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Berch, D. B., Kirkorian, R. & Huha, M. E. (1998). The Corsi block-tapping task: methodological and theoretical considerations. Brain and Cognition, 38, 317338. Berninger, W. V., Abbot, D. R., Thomson, B. J. & Raskind, H. W. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and writing disability: A family approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 59-106. Berninger, W. V., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. R, Harris, and S. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of Learning Disabilities, (pp. 345-363). New York: Guildford Press. Bramlett, R. K. & Murphy, J. J. (1998). School psychology perspectives on consultation: Key contributions to the field. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9, 29-55. Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., Wallingsford, L. & Mall, J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: A national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 327-335.

167

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R, Scammacca, N., Chavez, M. M. (2008). Mathematics Intervention for First- and Second-Grade Students With Mathematics Difficulties: The Effects of Tier 2 Intervention Delivered as Booster Lessons. Remedial & Special Education, 29, 20-32. Bull, R., Johnston, R. S. & Roy, J. A. (1999). Exploring the roles of the visual-spatial sketchpad and central executive in children's arithmetical skills: Views from cognition and developmental neuropsychology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15,421-442. Busse, J., Berninger, V. W., Smith, R. D. & Hildebrand, D. (2001). Assessment for math talent and disability: A developmental model. In J. J. W. Andrews, D. H. Saklofske, & H. L. Janzen (Eds.,), Handbook ofpsychoeducational assessment: Ability, achievement and behavior in children (pp. 225-250). NY: Academic Press. Carr, M. & Hettinger, H. (2003). Perspectives on mathematics strategy development. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 33-68). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York, Cambridge: University Press. Cary, K. T. (1995). Consultation in the real world. Journal of Educational Consultation, 6, 397-400. Clifford, E. S. (2008). [A review of state special education law: Specific learning disability definition and identification]. Unpublished raw data.

168

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2n ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cole, J. C , Fasnacht-Hill, L. A., Robinson, S. K. & Cordahi, C. (2001). Differentiation of fluid, visual and simultaneous cognitive tasks. Psychological Reports, 89, 541546. Cornoldi, C , Venneri, A., Marconato, F., Molin, A. & Montinari, C. (2003). A rapid screening measure for the identification of visuo-spatial learning disability in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 299-306. Cornwall, A. (1992). The relationship of phonological awareness, rapid naming and verbal memory to severe reading and spelling disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 532-538. CTB/ McGraw-Hill. (2002). Terra Nova: The second edition. CAT technical bulletin. Monterey California: CTB/McGraw-Hill. Dean v. J., Burns, M. K. (2002). Inclusion of intrinsic processing difficulties in LD diagnostic models: A critical review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 170-176. DiStefano, C. & Dombrowski, S. C. (2006). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 123136. Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, S. K. & Leforgee, H. M. (2002). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31, 246-262.

169

Fagen, T. K. & Wise, P. S. (2000). School psychology: Past present and future (2nd Ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Federal Register (2006). Part II. C.F. R. Parts 300 and 301 Rules and Regulations, Volume 71 Number 156. Washington DC: U. S. Department of Education. Fisk, J. E. & Sharp, C. A. (2003). The role of the executive system in visuo-spatial memory functioning. Brain and Cognition, 52, 364-381. Fleischner, J. E. & Manheimer, M. A. (1997). Math interventions for student with learning disabilities: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26, 397-413. Fletcher, J. M. (2005). Predicting math outcomes: Reading predictors and co-morbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 308-312. Floyd, G. R., Evans, K. J. & McGrew, K. (2003). Relations between measures of CattellHorn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement across the school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 155-166. Forrest, B. (2004). The utility of math difficulties, internalized psychopathology and visual-spatial deficits to identify children with the nonverbal learning disability syndrome: Evidence for a visual spatial disability. Child Neuropsychology, 10, 129-146. Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2003). Enhancing the mathematical problem solving of students with mathematics disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of learning disabilities, (pp. 306-322). NY: Guilford Press.

170

Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Prevention in mathematics: Improving outcomes, building identification models and understanding disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 35-352. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L. Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K. Bryant, J. D. & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493-513. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. Compton, D. L., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L, &. Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Mathematics Screening and Progress Monitoring at First Grade: Implications for Responsiveness to Intervention. Exceptional Children, 73, 311-330. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P.M., Capizzi, A.M., et al. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29-43. Garderen, D. & Montague, M. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problems solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246-254. Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345-362. Geary, D. C. (1996). Children's mathematical development: Research and practical applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ill

Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic; Problem-solving differences and cognitive deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, and S. Graham, Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199-212). New York: The Guilford Press. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4-15. Geary, D. C & Hoard, M. K. (2003). Learning disabilities in basic mathematics: Deficits in memory and cognition. In J. M. Royer (Ed.) Mathematical cognition, (pp. 93116) Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Geary, D.C., Hoard, M. K., C. Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L. & Numtee. (2007) Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Achievement Deficits in Children with Mathematical Learning Disability. Child Development, 78, 1343-1359. Gerring, R. J. & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Psychology and life. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://www.psychologymatters.org/glossary.html Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C. & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for student with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293304. Gonzalez, J. E. & Expinel, A. I. (2002). Strategy choice in solving arithmetic word problems: Are there differences between student with learning disabilities, Gv poor performance and typical achievement students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 113-123.

172

Gray, A. & McCutchen, D. (2006). Young readers' use of phonological information: Phonological awareness, memory and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 325-333. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: research into practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Griffin, S. (2003). The development of math competence in the preschool and early years: Cognitive foundations and instructional strategies. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 1-32). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Hallahan, D. P, & Mercer, C. D. (2001). Learning Disabilities: Historical perspectives. Executive summary. Washington, DC: Special Education Programs (ED/ OSERS) (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED458756). Hallahan, D. P, & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Chapter I: Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research into practice (pp. 1-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hale, J. B., Dawn, P. F. & Naglieri, J. A. (2008). Alternative research-based methods for IDEA 2004: Identification of children with specific learning disabilities. Communique, 36, 14-17. Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74-84.

173

Hammill, D. D., Leigh, J. E., McNutt, G. & Larsen, S.C. (1981). A new definition of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 336-342. Harnadeck, M. C. S. & Rourke, P. B. (1994). Principal identifying features for the syndrome of nonverbal learning disabilities in children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 144-154. Hartje, W. (1987). The effect of spatial disorder on arithmetical skills. In G. Deloche and X. Seron (Eds.), Mathematical disabilities: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective (pp. 121-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hauerwas, L. B. & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling of inflected verb morphology in children with spelling deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 25-35. Hayes, R. J. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano and J. R. Sqire (Eds.). Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hegarty, M. & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684-689. Heward, W. (2006). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; Merrill Prentice Hall. Holsgrove, J. & Garton, A. (2006). Phonological and syntactic processing and the role of working memory in reading comprehension among secondary school students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58, 111-118. Hooper, R. S. (2002). The language of written language: An introduction to a special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 2-6.

174

Hooper, R. S., Swartz, C. W., Wakely, M. B., de Kruid, E. L. R. & Montgomery, J. W. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57-69. Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 1, 102-119. Hsieh F, Bloch D, Larsen M (1998). A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Stat Med 17, 1623-34. Johnson, D. J. (1993). Relationships between oral and written language. School Psychology Review, 22 595-609. Jordan, N. C. & Hanich, L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567-578. Jordan, N. C. & Montani, T. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and problem solving: A comparison of children with specific and general mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 624-634. Jordan, N. C. (1995). Clinical Assessment of early mathematics disabilities: Adding up the research findings. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 59-60. Jordan, N. C , Hanich, L. B. & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with co-morbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834-850.

175

Joseph, L. M. (2002). Best practices in planning interventions for student with reading problems. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes, Best practices in school psychology: Volume 1 (4th Ed., pp. 803-813). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists Publications. Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2-16. Keith, Z. T., Fine, G. J., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R. & Kranzler, H. J. (2006). Higher order multisampling confirmation factor analysis of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fourth edition: What does it measure? School Psychology Review, 35, 108-127. Kellogg, T. R. (2001a). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175-191. Kellogg, T. R. (2001b). Long-term working memory in text production. Memory and Cognition, 29, 43-52. Kellogg, T. R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Kentucky Administrative Regulations (2007). Special Education Programs. The Division of Exceptional Children Services. The Office of Special Instruction Services. Kentucky Department of Education. Retrieved July 2, 2008 from: http://www.education.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F563C5DE-9241-4557-A5CC9A1E4CB51355/0/KARS_effective_Dec7_2007.pdf. Kirk, S. A. & Kirk, W. D. (1983). On defining learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 20-21.

176

Kroesberger, E., Van Luit, J. H. & Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Mathematical Learning Difficulties and PASS cognitive processes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 574-82. Lee, K., Ng, S-F., Ng, E-L., & Lim, Z-Y. (2004). Working memory and literacy as predictors of performance on algebraic word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 140-158. Lohman, D. F. (1994). Spatial ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence: Volume 2 (pp. 1000-1007). New York: MacMillian Publishing Company. Louisiana Administrative Code (2007). Title 28. Education PartXLIII. Bulletin 1706 Regulations for Implementation of the Children with Exceptionalities Act. Louisiana Department of Education. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/bese/! 041 .html Mather, N. & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner's manual. Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Mathematical problem solving. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical cognition (pp. 69-92). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing. Mazzocco, M. M. (2005). Challenges in identifying target skills for math disability screening and intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 318-323. Mazzocco, M. M., & Meyer, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53,218-253.

177

Mazzocco, M. M. & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten Predictors of Math Learning Disability^ Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 142-155. McGlaughlin, S. M., Knoop, A. J. & HoUiday, G. A. (2005). Differentiating students with mathematics difficulty in college: Mathematics disabilities vs. no diagnosis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 223-232. McCormick, S. (2003). Instructing students who have literacy problems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall. McGrew, S. K. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carro 11 theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136-181).New York: Guilford. McGrew, S. K. & Knopik, N. S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Cf cognitive clusters and writing achievement across the life spaa School Psychology Review, 1993, 22 687-695. McGrew, S. K. & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual: Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. McGrew, S. K., Schrank, F. A. & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Melko, L. A. & Burns, T. G. (2005). Test review. Applied Neuropsychology, 12 179-180.

178

Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19,217-232. Mertler, C. A. & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods, (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Morris, R. G. & Parslow, D. (2004). Neurocognitive components of spatial memory. In G. L. Allen (Ed), Human spatial memory: Remembering where (pp. 217-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murphy M. M., Mazzocco, M. M., Hanich, L. B. & Early, M. C. (2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of cut-off criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disability, 40, 458-478. Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of wordrecognition skills: evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 85-101. National Association of School Psychologists (2007). Position statement on identification of children with specific learning disabilities. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1991). Learning Disabilities: Issues on definition. Asha, 33 (Suppl.5), 18-20. National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). National assessment of educational progress: Data explore. Retrieved October 13, 2006 from, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp

179

Nebraska Department of Education (2006). 2005-2006 State of the school report: A report on Nebraska public schools. Retrieved November 23, 2006, from http://reportcard.nde.state.ne.us Osmon, D.C., Smerz, J. M., Braun, M. M. & Plambeck, E. (2006). Processing abilities associated with math skills in adult learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical and Neuropsychological, 28, 84-95. Passolunghi, C. M. & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short-term memory, working memory, and inhibitory control in children with difficulties in arithmetic problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 44-57. Passolunghi, C. M. & Siegel, L. S. (2004). Working memory and access to numerical information in children with a disability in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 348-367. Pickering, S. J. & Gathercole, S. E. (2004). Distinctive working memory profiles in children with Special educational needs. Educational Psychology, 24, 393-408. Proctor, B. E., Floyd, R. G. & Shaver, R. B. (2005). Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad cognitive ability profiles of low math achievers. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 1-12. Proctor, B. & Prevatt, (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459-466. Reitan Neuropsychology Laboratories. (2003). Target Test. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.reitanlabs.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=74&products_id=221

180

Reschly, D. J., Hosp, J. L. & Schmied, C. M. (2003). And miles to go

: State SLD

requirements and authoritative recommendations. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://nrcld.org/research/states/MilestoGo.pdf Reuhkala, M. (2001). Mathematical skills in ninth-graders: Relationship with visuospatial abilities and working memory. Educational Psychology, 21, 387- 400. Richardson, J. E. T. & Vecchi, T. (2002). A jigsaw-puzzle imagery task for assessing active visuo-spatial processes in old and young people. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 69-82. Robinson, C. S., Menchetti, B. M., Torgensen, J. K. (2002). Toward a two-factor theory of one type of mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 81-89. Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales, (5th ed.). Examiner's manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales, (5th ed.). Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Roid, G. H. & Barram, a. R. (2004). Essentials of Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (SB5) assessment. A. Kaufman & N. Kaufman (Series Ed.). Essentials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Roid, H. G., & Pomplun, M. (2005). Interpreting the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales, fifth edition. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (2nd ed., pp. 325-343). New York; Guilford.

181

Rosselli, M. & Ardila, A. (2003). The impact of culture and education on non-verbal neuropsychological measurements: A critical review. Brain and Cognition, 52, 326-333. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc. Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (5 ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher Inc. Sattler, J. M. & Dumont, R. (2004). Assessment of children: WISC-IV and WPPSI-III supplemental. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc. Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2005). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563-568. Sholl, J. M. & Fraone, S. K. (2004). Visuo-spatial working memory for different scales of space: Weigh the evidence. In G. L. Allen (Ed.), Human spatial memory: Remembering where (pp. 67-100).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spreen, O. & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms and commentary (2nd ed.) NY: Oxford University Press. Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities' field a pseudoscience. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 103-106. Swanson, L. H. (2004). Working memory and phonological processing as predictors of children's mathematical problem solving at different ages. Memory & Cognition, 32, 648-661.

182

Swanson, L. H. (2006). Cross-sectional and incremental changes in working memory and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 256-281. Swanson, H. L. & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problems solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471-491. Swanson, H.L. & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children's working memory and writing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358385. Swanson, H. L., Crystal, B. H. & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 39, 252-269. Swanson, H.L. & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249-274. Swanson, H.L., Jerman, O, & Zhang, X. (2008). Growing in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343-379. Swanson, L. H. & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematical problems solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294-321. Swanson, L. H. & Saez, L. (2003). Memory difficulties in children and adults with learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris and S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 183-197). NY: Guilford Press.

183

Swanson, L. H. & Hoskyn, M. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: Selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102-119. Tabachnick, G. B. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.) New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research into practice (pp. 565-603). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. U. S. Department of Education (2006a). Assistance to states for Education for children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities. Final Regulations, 34 C. R. F. 300 and 306 (2006). U. S. Department of Education (2006b). Individuals with disabilities Education improvement Act topic: Identification of specific learning disabilities. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from http://idea.ed.gOv/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23 %2C U. S. Office of Special Education Programs (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved June, 6 2006, from http://www.ideadata.org Vecchi, T. & Cornoldi, C. (1999). Passive storage and active manipulation in visuospatial working memory: Further evidence from the study of age differences. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 391-406.

184

Vecchi, T. & Richardson, J. T. (2001). Measures of visuo-spatial short-term memory: The Knox cube imitation tests and the Corsi blocks test compared. Brain and Cognition, 46, 291-294. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: the Psychological Corporation. Young, A. W. & Ratcliff, G. (1983). Visuo-spatial abilities and the right hemisphere. In A. E. Young, (Ed.), Functions of the right cerebral hemisphere, (pp. 1-24). NY: Academic Press. Zeleke, S. (2004). Differences in self-concept among children with mathematics disabilities and their average and high achieving peers. International Journal of Disability, 51, 253-269. Zentall, S. S. (1990). Fact-retrieval atomization and math problem solving by learning disabled, attention-disorders and normal adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 856-865. Zhu, J. & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler Scales. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (2nd ed., pp. 297-324). New York: Guilford.

185