東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Breaking the discrepancy code: A met...

Bachmeier, Randy J.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature./
作者:	Bachmeier, Randy J.
面頁冊數:	318 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-02, Section: A, page: 0522.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International71-02A.
標題:	Education, Tests and Measurements. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3392181
ISBN:	9781109576115

Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature.
Bachmeier, Randy J.

Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature. - 318 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-02, Section: A, page: 0522.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Regent University, 2009.

Previous "selective" meta-analyses of the literature relating to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model of specific learning disability identification have concluded that "underachieving" and "low-achieving" poor readers do not differ in any educationally meaningful way. Underachievers are those poor readers who qualify as learning disabled using an IQ-achievement discrepancy definition, and low achievers are those poor readers who do not. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of the extensive literature base from an alternative perspective and employing more modern and robust statistical models. The study tested the IQ-achievement discrepancy model's construct validity, whether it can discriminate two meaningfully different subgroups within the population of poor readers, by examining not only reading skills but also listening skills. Consistent with previous research, the discrepancy definition did not differentiate the two groups based upon reading skills. The resulting effect size of delta = -.01 for reading comprehension supported the hypothesis that underachieving and low-achieving students are equally impaired in ability to learn via written text, despite the fact that underachieving students evidenced a greater level of impairment in decoding/phonological awareness (delta = -.39). With respect to listening comprehension, however, the discrepancy definition did meaningfully differentiate the two groups with a large effect size. The resulting delta = +.86 supported the hypothesis that underachieving students have a much greater capacity to learn via the auditory channel. Underachieving students substantially outperformed low-achieving students in this educationally meaningful skill, despite a relatively liberal IQ-achievement discrepancy requirement of only 1SD. Regardless of conflicting results in the primary research, previous syntheses concluded no meaningful differences between underachievers and low achievers exist. Hunter and Schmidt (2004) contended, however, that most methods of research synthesis are based upon incomplete theories of data and/or naive philosophical foundations and thus frequently produce misleading results. They argued that what appears to be conflicting data is actually encrypted information, and to understand its meaning scientists must first break the code. By employing their more modern and robust model of "psychometric" meta-analysis, this study decrypted the data to identify a substantial and educationally meaningful difference and thereby break the discrepancy code.

ISBN: 9781109576115Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017589
Education, Tests and Measurements.

Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature.
LDR:03511nam 2200289 4500 001 1391005
005 20101222085243.5
008 130515s2009 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781109576115
035 $a (UMI)AAI3392181
035 $a AAI3392181
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Bachmeier, Randy J. $3 1669371
245 1 0 $a Breaking the discrepancy code: A meta-analysis of the specific learning disability literature.
300 $a 318 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-02, Section: A, page: 0522.
500 $a Adviser: Mark P. Mostert.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--Regent University, 2009.
520 $a Previous "selective" meta-analyses of the literature relating to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model of specific learning disability identification have concluded that "underachieving" and "low-achieving" poor readers do not differ in any educationally meaningful way. Underachievers are those poor readers who qualify as learning disabled using an IQ-achievement discrepancy definition, and low achievers are those poor readers who do not. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of the extensive literature base from an alternative perspective and employing more modern and robust statistical models. The study tested the IQ-achievement discrepancy model's construct validity, whether it can discriminate two meaningfully different subgroups within the population of poor readers, by examining not only reading skills but also listening skills. Consistent with previous research, the discrepancy definition did not differentiate the two groups based upon reading skills. The resulting effect size of delta = -.01 for reading comprehension supported the hypothesis that underachieving and low-achieving students are equally impaired in ability to learn via written text, despite the fact that underachieving students evidenced a greater level of impairment in decoding/phonological awareness (delta = -.39). With respect to listening comprehension, however, the discrepancy definition did meaningfully differentiate the two groups with a large effect size. The resulting delta = +.86 supported the hypothesis that underachieving students have a much greater capacity to learn via the auditory channel. Underachieving students substantially outperformed low-achieving students in this educationally meaningful skill, despite a relatively liberal IQ-achievement discrepancy requirement of only 1SD. Regardless of conflicting results in the primary research, previous syntheses concluded no meaningful differences between underachievers and low achievers exist. Hunter and Schmidt (2004) contended, however, that most methods of research synthesis are based upon incomplete theories of data and/or naive philosophical foundations and thus frequently produce misleading results. They argued that what appears to be conflicting data is actually encrypted information, and to understand its meaning scientists must first break the code. By employing their more modern and robust model of "psychometric" meta-analysis, this study decrypted the data to identify a substantial and educationally meaningful difference and thereby break the discrepancy code.
590 $a School code: 1058.
650 4 $a Education, Tests and Measurements. $3 1017589
650 4 $a Education, Policy. $3 1669130
650 4 $a Education, Special. $3 606639
690 $a 0288
690 $a 0458
690 $a 0529
710 2 $a Regent University. $3 1019258
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 71-02A.
790 1 0 $a Mostert, Mark P., $e advisor
790 $a 1058
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2009
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3392181