The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 45 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Differential diagnosis of dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD: behavioral and neuroimaging evidence
Open accessAbstract
In Study 1, children in grades 4 to 9 (N= 88, 29 females and 59 males) with persisting reading and/or writing disabilities, despite considerable prior specialized instruction in and out of school, were given an evidence-based comprehensive assessment battery at the university while parents completed questionnaires regarding past and current history of language learning and other difficulties. Profiles (patterns) of normed measures for different levels of oral and written language used to categorize participants into diagnostic groups for dysgraphia (impaired subword handwriting) (n=26), dyslexia (impaired word spelling and reading) (n=38), or oral and written language learning disability OWL LD (impaired oral and written syntax comprehension and expression) (n=13) or control oral and written language learners (OWLs) without SLDs (n=11) were consistent withreported history. Impairments in working memory components supporting language learning were also examined. In Study 2, right handed children from Study 1 who did not wear braces (controls, n=9, dysgraphia, n= 14; dyslexia, n=17, OWL LD, n=5) completed an fMRI functional connectivity brain imaging study in which they performed a word-specific spelling judgment task, which is related to both word reading and spelling, and may be impaired in dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD for different reasons. fMRI functional connectivity from 4 seed points in brain locations involved in written word processing to other brain regions also differentiated dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD; both specific regions to which connected and overall number of functional connections differed. Thus, results provide converging neurological and behavioral evidence, for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD being different, diagnosable specific learning disabilities (SLDs) for persisting written language problems during middle childhood and early adolescence. Translation of the research findings into practice at policy and administrative levels and at local school levels is discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
68 Own result · 26 Own interpretation · 20 Sources not found · 15 No basis given · 11 No full text of the sources · 4 Own method · 3 Supported · 3 Partly supported · 3 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The assessment studies showed that some students had significant problems with handwriting, which in turn interfered with their spelling and/or composing fluency, but not with reading.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berninger & Richards, 2010 source
The Emerging issues & future perspective section says that dysgraphia is a handwriting disorder and that handwriting can interfere with spelling and written composition. The Evidence-based differential diagnosis section distinguishes dysgraphia’s handwriting and writing impairments from dyslexia’s reading impairments and discusses spelling disability without reading disability. The Orthographic loop section also links letter-writing ability to compositional fluency. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Yet others had significant difficulty with syntax level listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berninger & Richards, 2010 source
The Theoretical framework for integrating past and current phenotype findings (page unavailable) states that impaired morphological and syntactic processing in children with SLI/OWL LD interferes with listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression. The Evidence-based differential diagnosis section also describes clinical assessment studies of children with OWL LD. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The high co-occurrence of impaired orthographic loop across diagnostic groups and individuals may be related to this measure assessing automaticity in letter formation and automaticity in accessing, retrieving, and producing ordered letter symbols, both of which have been shown to play an important role in learning to spell and read words and as well as write letters (Berninger, 2009).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Berninger, 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The General Model section describes orthographic impairment across several learning-disability groups, and the Dysgraphia and Validating Predictors sections link the orthographic loop to automatic letter production and learning to spell (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not establish a high co-occurrence of impairment on the particular measure, explain that co-occurrence, or show that the orthographic loop plays a role in reading words. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Co-occurring SLDs in the same student in a study of reading, writing, and arithmetic problems were also reported by Moll, Kunze, Neuhoff, Bruder, & Schulte-Kőrne (2014).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Moll, Kunze, Neuhoff, Bruder, & Schulte-Kőrne (2014) source
The Abstract reports that Moll et al. assessed isolated and comorbid learning disorders in reading, writing, and mathematics among 1,633 children. The Results (Prevalence rates) explicitly report combined deficits, including deficits in all three domains, in the same children. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite the variations among the three SLDs, they also share some common features (cf., Bishop, & Snowling, 2004).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bishop, & Snowling, 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Overview (p. 8) describes commonalities and differences between dyslexia and specific language impairment, including shared phonological deficits. The source does not establish that all three SLDs referred to in the citing sentence share common features; its comparison is principally between two disorders. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All students who qualified for the comprehensive assessment in the current study could be assigned to one of the three diagnostic groups or control group.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None met criteria for OWL LD.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 38 classified as having dyslexia, all but 10 met the dual criteria of having at least two word reading and/or spelling measures at or below −2/3 SD and past and current history of word reading and spelling problems.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 38- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those with dyslexia, impaired phonological (n=6) and morphological (n=5) word storage and processing and focused/selective attention (n=13) occurred as had also been observed in dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelationaln = 13- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that nearly 75% of the participants sssigned to the dyslexia group qualified whether we used the criteria of two word level reading and spelling measures below −2/3 SD but no evidence of syntax level problems in aural/oral or read/written language, or whether we used the criteria in a multi-generational family dyslexia study”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 48
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On the one hand, the variations in functional connectivity observed during middle childhood and early adolescence may be due to genetic variants associated with spelling (e.g., Roeske et al., 2009; Rubenstein et al., 2011; Schulte-Kőrne et al., 1998) or endophenotypes for attention supporting language learning (e. g,, Posner and Rothbart, 2007; Rubenstein et al., 2014).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Roeske et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Rubenstein et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports linkage between spelling ability and four genomic regions, supporting a genetic contribution to spelling. It does not identify specific variants or examine functional connectivity, so it cannot establish the proposed explanation for connectivity differences. The attention-endophenotype portion of the citing sentence is attached to other citations. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schulte-Kőrne et al., 1998 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 26, 21 fell in the low average or below average range on DASH Copy FAST and exactly half (13) fell in the low average or below average range on DASH Copy Best.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 26- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other working memory component impairments besides orthographic loop included phonological word storage and processing (n=1), orthographic word storage and processing (n=7), morphological word storage and processing (n=4), and focused/selective attention (D-KEFS Color Word Inhibition) (n=5).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, of the ten who did not, they met the criteria used in multigenerational family genetics studies in which the child qualifying family for participation had word reading and/or spelling skills below the population mean and at least a standard deviation below measured Verbal Comprehension Index (e.g., Raskind et al., 2005); and the students had continued to have persisting reading and spelli”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Raskind et al., 2005 source
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“fMRI functional connectivity from 4 seed points in brain locations involved in written word processing to other brain regions also differentiated dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD; both specific regions to which connected and overall number of functional connections differed.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of those with OWL LD, 2 had co-occurring dysgraphia, 2 had co-occurring dyslexia, 5 had co-occurring dysgraphia and dyslexia, and 4 had no co-occurring dyslexia or dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Working memory impairments were also observed in orthographic word storage and processing (n=7), phonological word storage and processing (n=4), focused/selective attention (color word inhibition) (n=4), switching attention (RAS) (n=3), and phonological loop (RAN) (n=1).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the left occipital temporal seed point, those with OWL LD showed the least connectivity (to 21 regions); the controls somewhat more connectivity (to 26 regions); but those with dysgraphia (to 42 regions) showed considerably more connectivity; and those with dyslexia (to 79 regions) showed the most connectivity.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dysgraphia group outperformed the OWL LD group on one cognitive measure (WISC IV Verbal Comprehension), all measures of processing and/or producing oral language, reading comprehension and written composition, dictated spelling of real words and accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words and pseudowords, orthographic and morphological storage and processing of words, and switching”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The working memory components that showed main effects for groups included orthographic coding, morphological coding, phonological loop, orthographic loop, and supervisory attention (focused/selective attention and switching/flexible attention).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although neither those with dysgraphia nor those with dyslexia differed from the controls on cognitive measures, those with OWL LD did differ from controls and differed on both what is generally regarded as verbal cognition (first measure in Table 2) and nonverbal cognition (last two measures in Table 2).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the left supramarginal gyrus seed point, those with OWL LD showed underconnectivity (to 14 regions) compared to the controls (to 46 regions); those with dysgraphia had even more connectivity (to 75 regions); and those with dyslexia had the most connectivity (to 110 regions).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although impairments in phonological word coding were observed in all groups, they were more frequent in dyslexia (6), next highest in OWL LD (4), and lowest in dysgraphia (1).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 2 summarizes the main effects for groups on the three cognitive measures at the p ≤ .001. Group effects were observed for WISC IV Verbal Comprehension (cognitive to oral language translation), WJ III Concept Formulation (inductive reasoning—abstracting concepts), and WJ III Analysis-Synthesis (deductive reasoning—applying principles or rules).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dyslexia group outperformed the OWL LD group on all three cognitive measures, three oral language measures, and morphological storage and processing of words.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the left inferior frontal seed point, the controls had the least connectivity (to 10 regions); those with OWL LD had somewhat more (to 21 regions); those with dysgraphia had even more (to 53 regions); and those with dyslexia had the most (to 72 regions).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 summarizes the between subjects Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) results for each of the levels of language measures and working memory components on which the main effect for groups was significant at p ≤ .001. These included alphabet 15 and DASH Copy Fast for subword level, two measures of dictated spelling (pseudowords and real words) and four measures of oral reading (accuracy and rate for”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All had reported history of past and current struggle with the relevant language skills for the assigned diagnostic group.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The criterion noted is the upper limit for qualifying for a diagnostic group; most fell below that cut-off and often substantially below and on more than two measures.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although neither those with dysgraphia nor those with dyslexia differed from the controls on cognitive measures, those with OWL LD did differ from controls and differed on both what is generally regarded as verbal cognition (first measure in Table 2) and nonverbal cognition (last two measures in Table 2).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the left precuneus seed point, the controls showed the least connectivity (to 29 regions) with those with OWL LD showing about the same (to 32 regions); and again those with dysgraphia showed more connectivity (to 58 regions); and those with dyslexia showed the most connectivity (to 88 regions).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dysgraphia group outperformed the dyslexia group on measures of dictated spelling of real words and accuracy and rate of oral reading of real words as well as phonological loop and switching attention.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That approach confirmed unique diagnostic patterns based on impairments in levels of language and working memory components supporting language learning, but also some variation within diagnostic groups, consistent with individual differences and genetic heterogeneity in SLDs (e.g., Raskind et al., 2012), and also some commonality across groups.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Raskind et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to controls, overall those with dysgraphia made more functional connections from specific locations to other destinations and varied on the same task as to the destinations of those connections from a common location of origin.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both distinctive and co-occurring SLDs, as predicted by the cascading levels of language framework, and common and unique impairments in working memory components, as predicted by a multi-component working memory model of language learning, were identified.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, each of the SLDs showed some common functional connectivity as to destination from the seed point of origin, as well as distinctly different patterns of connectivity from each other and controls from four seed points on the same word-specific spelling task.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general on the same task those with OWL LD showed about the same number of functional connections as controls or fewer connections than controls depending on the seed point.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, those with dyslexia showed the most functional connectivity (number of regions connected to seed point of origin) and differed most from the others in the nature of the connections (destinations).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 2 provided converging fMRI functional connectivity brain evidence that those with dysgraphia, dyslexia, OWL LD, and controls differ in neuroimaging patterns of (a) which local brain regions of origin are connected to which other brain regions, and (b) how many functional connections are made from the same local brain region to other brain regions during a common word-specific spelling task.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the key concept in the cascading levels of language framework is that identifying the hallmark impaired level of language is critical to understanding an individual’s profile of learning (language achievement) skills and planning appropriate, specialized instruction that is necessary in order to remediate the SLD.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Cascading levels of language
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“individuals may or may not show co-occurring impairment in the written language skills involving the smaller units of language below the hallmark level of impairment, but they do not show hallmark impairment in the larger unit(s) of language beyond their primary impairment”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Cascading levels of language
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although oral language disabilities may respond to treatment in the preschool years, the affected children are likely to have ongoing listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and/or written expression problems”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nelson, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The phonological loop has been re-conceptualized as a cross-code integration mechanism that supports language learning (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Multiple working memory components supporting language learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Although dyslexia is often thought to be a reading problem, the persisting problem is spelling”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lefly, & Pennington, 1991; Schulte-Korne et al., 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“about 20% of school age children and youth in the United States probably have some kind of SLD that may interfere with school learning at some time in their education”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Katusic, Barbaresi, Colligan, Weaver, Leibson, Jacobsen, 2005; Katusic, Colligan, Barbaresi, Schaid, Jacobsen, 2001; Katusic, Colligan, Weaver, Barbaresi, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, evidence-based differential diagnosis is treatment-relevant.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Cascading levels of language
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, results provide converging neurological and behavioral evidence, for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD being different, diagnosable specific learning disabilities (SLDs) for persisting written language problems during middle childhood and early adolescence.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the conceptual framework underlying the current research was based on the level of language of the hallmark, defining impairment of each of three SLDs: subword level handwriting, word level reading/spelling, or syntax level comprehension and expression.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Cascading levels of language
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“supervisory attention in working memory is no longer considered a single function, but rather a panel of functions for focusing (selective), switching (flexible), and sustaining (maintaining) attention”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Multiple working memory components supporting language learning
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baddeley, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“some other reading and writing problems are associated with significant impairments in syntax-level skills and may emerge during the preschool years”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ellis & Thal, 2008; Mashburn, & Myers, 2010; Apel, & Apel, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this model, the deep structure is not in the syntax of the language, but rather in the higher order executive function for translating across the domains of cognition and oral language; and the full language learning mechanism involves both a translator and a multi-component working memory system supporting language learning across cascading levels of language”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Summary of conceptual model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the area of primary impairment may interfere with acquisition of skills at higher levels of language but once the primary impairment is remediated, the problems at the higher level of language resolve”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Cascading levels of language
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“those with dyslexia showed slower RTI for decoding instruction (pronounceable nonwords) whereas those with OWL LD showed slower RTI on real word reading instruction.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Berninger, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Thus, Chomsky’s (1965) proposed language learning mechanism, in which syntax played a fundamental role, may be a multi-component working-memory architecture that supports language learning at other levels of language as well”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Multiple working memory components supporting language learning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chomsky, 1965
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Baddeley’s original model of working memory has evolved (Baddeley, 2003) from only two storage mechanisms--phonological and visual spatial —to multiple word form storage and processing mechanisms—phonological, orthographic, and semantic (Crosson et al., 1999) and phonological, orthographic, and morphological word forms (Richards et al., 2006) and a syntax buffer for accumulating word forms (Ber”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Multiple working memory components supporting language learning
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baddeley, 2003; Crosson et al., 1999; Richards et al., 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“students with persisting dysgraphia did not show RTI unless systematic instruction in letter writing legibility and automaticity was included; and students with OWL LD did not show RTI unless systematic instruction in syntax level skills for language by ear, by mouth, by eye, and by hand was included”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berninger & O’Malley-May, 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For dysgraphia, handwriting interferes with writing words in learning to spell.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not follow that the OWL LD group has cognitive deficiencies. Rather, they have impairments in their oral language skills for answering questions to express their cognitions on verbal measures; and for listening comprehension to understand the instructions and items administered with oral instructions even though oral responses are not required. That is, they are impaired in cognitive to l”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Left supramarginal gryus in parietal lobe is involved in storing words and their parts in working memory.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subword, word, and/or syntax levels may be impaired for language by ear (listening), by mouth (oral expression), by eye (reading), and/or by hand (writing).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Left precuneus in parietal lobe is involved in reflecting upon the word parts and their interrelationships, that is, linguistic awareness.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the first author examined whether the pattern of the learning profile test scores converged with (a) one of the three SLD diagnostic groups based on past research and the conceptual model described earlier or the control group, and (b) the reported history (timing of first observation of learning difficulty), nature of learning difficulties during preschool, the early grades, and recent/current”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This impairment in the higher order executive function of translation may also affect other domains including nonverbal.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That may be because even though the latter two measures require a nonverbal response, they also require processing heard language in the instructions for the various items.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, not all reading problems are dyslexia, and preventing and treating persisting dyslexia requires spelling as well as reading instruction (e.g., Berninger, 2008, 2009).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Berninger, 2008, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Left occipital temporal brain region has been shown in much brain research to be a word form region for initial processing of visible language.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, two kinds of controls were used. The first control was using measures with published test norms or research norms to compare each participant to age or grade peers in interpreting relative performance along a distribution of scores for measures relevant to differential diagnosis. This approach allows interpretation despite the age range of the participants because each participant is”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the heterogeneity underlying behavioral expression of SLDs across and within diagnostic groups, it is unlikely that a “one size fits all” approach to diagnostic procedures is evidence-based or can be reduced to algorithms that can be legally defined without professional judgment for the case at hand in the context of the profile for the whole child.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area) in frontal lobe is involved in the executive functions for coordinating language systems throughout the brain.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It does not follow, however, that students with OWL LD are less intelligent nor that what cognitive measures assess is irrelevant to academic achievement.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, two testers reviewed all the scored handwritten measures to reach consensus on scoring.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dysgraphia involves mainly impaired language by hand, whereas dyslexia involves mainly impaired language by eye, and OWL LD involves mainly impaired language by ear and by mouth.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall the findings are consistent with cascading levels of language impairment—subword level impairment in dysgraphia alone, but word- level and sometimes subword-level in dyslexia, and syntax-level impairment and sometimes subword and/or word levels in OWL LD.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For dyslexia, hallmark impairments in phonological and orthographic coding can interfere with learning alphabet principle for word decoding in reading and word encoding in spelling.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conclusions based on this study should be restricted to developmental levels of the participants—middle childhood and early adolescence.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If more functional connections consume more limited resources, fewer connections may be more efficient in use of limited resources for fueling the brain’s work during written word learning.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the persisting problems may be due to instruction that is not tailored to the changing nature and requirements of the curriculum during middle childhood and adolescence (e.g., see Troia, 2009), which needs to include spelling and go beyond phonology only to orthography and morphology and their interrelationships with each other.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Troia, 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Consensus has not been reached within or across countries on definitions of specific learning disabilities in general or of those affecting written language acquisition.
“Consensus has not been reached within and across countries for definitions of specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in general or those affecting written language acquisition in particular.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The widely used approaches to defining SLDs, discrepancy and response to intervention, have not resolved the definitional issues.
“The widely used approaches to defining SLDs—either discrepancy between the full scale score on a cognitive test and an achievement test or response to intervention (RTI)—have not resolved the definitional issues.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Researchers have not identified a specific discrepancy size that is diagnostic by itself without additional evidence about which achievement skills are impaired.
“researchers have not identified a specific size of discrepancy that alone is diagnostic in and of itself without additional evidence about which achievement skills are impaired.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.
“All had reported history of past and current struggle with the relevant language skills for the assigned diagnostic group.”
“parent reported history of past and current handwriting difficulties”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 77 students with diagnosed SLDs in Study 1 are representative of students with persisting SLDs in middle childhood and early adolescence.
“Of the 77 students in the sample with diagnosed SLDs, 65 showed evidence of impaired orthographic loop.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
More functional connections consume more limited brain resources, so fewer connections are more efficient.
“If more functional connections consume more limited resources, fewer connections may be more efficient in use of limited resources for fueling the brain’s work during written word learning.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
“left occipital temporal, left supramarginal gyrus, left precuneus, and left inferior frontal gyrus”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
“Individual functional connectivity maps were generated for each of the 4 different seed points in left visual cortex, left temporoocipital, left supramarginal, and left inferior frontal gyrus).”
Citations
Cites
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.127 · Cited by 7,335
Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902 · cited 2×
“As shown in the ground-breaking research by Schneider and Shriffin (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Shriffin & Scheider, 1977) early in cognitive psychology, initial processing tends to be briefly on an automatic pilot, whereas subsequent processing engages more resource demanding controlled, strategic processing.”
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1201 · Cited by 5,200 · cited 1×
“…attention in working memory is no longer considered a single function, but rather a panel of functions for focusing (selective), switching (flexible), and sustaining (maintaining) attention (cf. Baddeley, 2003); and self-monitoring as assessed with the n-back task Richards et al., 2009b).”
A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data
Eickhoff, S. B., Stephan, K. E., Mohlberg, H., Grefkes, C., Fink, G. R., Amunts, K., & Zilles, K. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.034 · Cited by 4,033 · cited 1×
“Using state of the science techniques for fMRI functional connectivity (Eickhoff, Heim, Zilles, Amunts, 2006; Eickhoff et al., 2005, 2007; Toga, Thompson, Mori, Amunts, & Zilles, 2006), the research team analyzed acquired images for waves of connectivity from four seed points (specific brain…”
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15082-000 · Cited by 2,683
The phonological loop as a language learning device.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.158 · Cited by 2,199 · cited 2×
“90) (Wolf & Denckla, 2005), which is a measure of phonological loop for cross-code integration in language learning (Baddeley et al., 1998) and has a genetic basis (Rubenstein, Raskind, Berninger, Matsushita, & Wijsman, 2014), the task is to name lower case printed letters arranged in rows.”
Shunk, A. W., Davis, A. S., & Dean, R. S. (2006) · Applied Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15324826an1304_9 · Cited by 1,540
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Smith, D. R. (2001) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012058570-0/50008-2 · Cited by 1,417
Developmental Dyslexia and Specific Language Impairment: Same or Different?
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.858 · Cited by 1,356
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Barnett, A., Henderson, L., Scheib, B., & Schulz, C. (2007). Detailed assessment of speed of handwriting (DASH) copy best and fast. London: Pearson.
- Berninger, V., & Hayes, J. R. (2012). Longitudinal case studies of twenty children on writing treks in grades 1 to 5. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & Berninger, V. (Eds.). Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, methods, and applications (pp. 95–179). Routledge: Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group.
- Ehri, L. (1980). The role of orthographic images in learning printed words. In J. F. Kavanaugh & R. Venezky (Eds.), Orthographic reading and dyslexia (pp. 307–332). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
- Mather, N., Hammill, D., Allen, E., & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency TOSWRF. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
- Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluations of language fundamentals 4th edition: Examiner’s manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Inc.
- Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford.
- Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. (2005). RAN/RAS rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
- Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001a). Woodcock-Johnson III psychoeducational cognitive test battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
- Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001b). Woodcock-Johnson III achievement battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–176 of 176
Obeid, R., Gravelle, C. D., Zapparrata, N., Messina, C., & Brooks, P. J. (2026) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2026_jslhr-25-00509
Individual and In-Session Strategies
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0046
Reimagining Family Engagement Through a Neurodiversity Lens
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0044
Khoueiry, J., & Nabhan, R. J. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01911-1
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0008
Restorative Practices and Regulation-Informed Discipline
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0043
Neurodivergence and Socioeconomic Class
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0020
Performative Inclusion and the Burden of Adaptation
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0038
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0024
Designing Accessible and Inclusive Social Emotional Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0031
The Ethical Imperative of Action
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0058
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.001.0001
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0001
Sustaining the Work: Burnout, Compassion Fatigue, and Systemic Support
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0034
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0053
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0049
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0002
Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0001
Transformative Social Emotional Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0032
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0050
Applying the Person-In-Environment Framework
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0008
Cultural Humility in Neurodiversity Affirming Practice
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0009
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0036
Peer Relationships and Dedicated Interests
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0040
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0002
Communication Justice as a Social Work Imperative
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0011
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0051
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0002
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0042
School Social Workers as Policy Advocates
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0055
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0035
Narrative Theory and the Reclamation of Neurodivergent Identity
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0016
Advocacy in a Shifting Political Landscape
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0057
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0006
Rethinking Social Intelligence
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0027
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0048
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0004
Culturally Responsive and Sustaining Practice
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0030
Neurodivergent Cultural Communication at the Intersection of Race
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0021
Applying Critical Disability Studies in Practice
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0014
Intersectionality as Praxis in Inclusive Social Work
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0018
Building Coalitions and Cross-System Partnerships
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0056
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0005
Spotlighting Communication Diversity as a Strategy
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0047
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0025
Modeling Youth-Adult Relationships
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0028
Bridging Individual Work to Systemic Change
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0054
Ayaz, M., Parwez, S., Paracha, M., Jalil, S. A., Safi, U., & Amin, S. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-113327 · Cited by 1
“For example, peer tutoring enhanced maths skills among students with dysgraphia, 48 while tele-rehabilitation programmes improved both reading and executive functions.”
Crisis Intervention through a Neurodiversity-Affirming Lens
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0052
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0007
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0013
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0037
Revisiting the Theory of Mind Narrative
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0006
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0039
Cultural Humility and Reflexivity in Practice
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0022
Centering Dignity, Strength, and Self-Determination
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0007
Reimagining Behavior Support in Schools
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0026
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0003
Environmental Fit and the Ecology of Inclusion
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0015
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0012
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0007
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0005
Gender, Masking, and the Performance of Acceptability
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0019
Recognizing Strengths and Challenges Across Neurodivergent Profiles
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0005
Centering Sensory Inclusivity and Student Voice in Neurodiversity-Affirming SEL
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0033
Advocacy in Special Education Systems
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0023
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0003
Supporting Neurodivergent Caregivers
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0045
Accessible Design for Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0029
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0004
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0017
Honoring Dedicated Interests as Pathways to Learning and Connection
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0041
Accessible Design for Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0010
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0006
Hojjati, G., & Milburn, T. F. (2026) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2026_lshss-25-00201
Blenis, R. C. (2026) · Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1111/jcap.70065
Metadata
- Authors
- Berninger, V. W., Richards, T. L., & Abbott, R. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Berninger, Virginia W.
- Venue
- Reading and Writing
- Published
- 2015-04-21
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1119-1153
- ISSN
- 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0905
- PMC
- PMC4553247
- OpenAlex
- W1997335834
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 112
- Citations by year
- 2026: 78 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11
- FWCI
- 29.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Reading and Writing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD071764, U54HD083091)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
- Keywords
- dysgraphia, dyslexia, specific learning disabilities, differential diagnosis, functional connectivity, working memory, written language processing, middle childhood, early adolescence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
