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)
plainstates a cause- 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)
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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)
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an associationn = 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.
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 about half the children with dyslexia had co-occurring dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedgedstates an association- 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.
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 28 who met the criteria with word reading and spelling in low average or below average range, 15 had co-occurring dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an associationn = 28- 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
“However, two working memory impairments were observed in dyslexia but not dysgraphia: phonological loop (RAN) (n=12) and switching/flexible attention (RAS) (n=13)”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 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
“Altogether 22 of the 26 identified as having dysgraphia, met the dual criteria of at least two hallmark language impairments affecting handwriting at or below – 2/3 S and past and current history of persisting handwriting problem, with no evidence of reading problems.”
§ 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: 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 all but two of the 26, alphabet writing 15, which is not only a marker of subword letter language impairment but also of working memory orthographic loop impairment, was in the low average or below average range.”
§ 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.
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, impaired orthographic coding (n=14) and orthographic loop (n=30) were the most frequent working memory component impairments common to both dysgraphia and dyslexia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 30- 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 those who met the criteria used in the family genetics for study for students with superior or better verbal reasoning, 4 had co-occurring dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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.
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
“Also of interest to both the first and second research question, considerable variability was observed as to which specific spelling and/or word reading skills or working memory components were impaired in individuals.”
§ 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.
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 OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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.
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 all cases at least one of the impairments involved aural or oral language syntax.”
§ 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
“As shown in Supplementary Table 5, on the same word-specific spelling task, the four groups differed in number of connections from each of the four seed points to other brain regions.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainstates an association- 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
“Impairments in orthographic coding also occurred with greater frequency in dyslexia (14) than in OWL LD (7) or dysgraphia (7) and often occurred in students with dyslexia who did not meet criteria for co-occurring dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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.
In the paper
“However, some variation among participants within a diagnostic group as to which specific written language and working memory measures were impaired was also observed in the examined individual profiles, consistent with evidence for genetic heterogeneity in SLDs (Raskind, Peters, Richards, Eckert, & Berninger, 2012).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Raskind, Peters, Richards, Eckert, & Berninger, 2012
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.
- 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
“For example, impairments in phonological loop and switching/flexible attention were frequently observed in dyslexia but never in dysgraphia alone.”
§ 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
“For example, the most common working memory impairment across all three SLD diagnostic groups was the orthographic loop.”
§ 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
“Both for dyslexia and OWL LD, co-occurring SLDs were found involving lower levels of language.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“In addition, some impaired working memory components varied across diagnostic groups.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“The dyslexia group differed from the other groups in word level reading and spelling and differed from the OWL LD group on syntax level skills.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“The OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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.
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 most frequent working memory component impairments were orthographic loop (n=11) and morphology word storage and processing (n=9).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 11- 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.
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
“Also, across all three SLDs, orthographic storage and processing and morphological storage and processing impairments were more common than phonological storage and processing impairments in this sample of students with persisting reading and/or writing problems during middle childhood and early adolescence.”
§ 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
“The typical oral and written language learners tended to score in the average or above ranges on all the levels of language and working memory components.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The individual student analyses (first and second research questions) showed that the sample could be classified into three SLD groups based on level of language impairment and preschool and school history of past, current, and persisting learning difficulties, consistent with Silliman and Mody (2008).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Silliman and Mody (2008)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- 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.
- 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
“The OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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
“Impairments in orthographic coding also occurred with greater frequency in dyslexia (14) than in OWL LD (7) or dysgraphia (7) and often occurred in students with dyslexia who did not meet criteria for co-occurring dysgraphia.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“However, many had impairments in written syntax, for example, on Sentence Combining, which is sensitive to written expression of thought at the syntax level”
§ 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.
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 OWL control group outperformed the dysgraphia group on orthographic loop (alphabet 15z) and DASH Copy Fast.”
§ 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.
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 OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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.
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
“All 13 who were classified as OWL LD met the dual criteria of at least two syntax level skills at or below −2/3 SD and past and current history of oral comprehension and/or expression difficulties.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 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.
- 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
“The OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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 77 students in the sample with diagnosed SLDs, 65 showed evidence of impaired orthographic loop.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainn = 77- 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
“The OWL control group outperformed the dysgraphia group on orthographic loop (alphabet 15z) and DASH Copy Fast.”
§ 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.
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 OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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.
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 differed from the other groups in word level reading and spelling and differed from the OWL LD group on syntax level skills.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“Impairments in morphological word coding were more frequent in OWL LD (9) compared to dyslexia (5) and dysgraphia (4).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“The OWL control group outperformed the dyslexia group on the same measures as it outperformed the dysgraphia group, but also on the following measures: spelling dictated real words, accuracy and rate of oral reading of real and pseudowords, syntax level sentence composition fluency, orthographic coding, 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.
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
“Group analyses (third research question) showed even stronger evidence for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD differing in level of language impairment and working memory phenotype impairment.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
boostedstates an association- 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
“The dysgraphia group differed from the other groups on subword level handwriting skills.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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
“They did not have history of struggles with oral or written language.”
§ 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
“Those with dysgraphia were always more connected from each seed point than were controls; and those with dyslexia were consistently overconnected compared to each of the other groups.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainstates an association- 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.
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
“Those with dysgraphia were always more connected from each seed point than were controls; and those with dyslexia were consistently overconnected compared to each of the other groups.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainstates an association- 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
“As shown in Supplementary Table 5, the pattern of fRMI functional connectivity from each of the four seed points to which of the other brain regions showed functional connectivity was also different for each diagnostic group.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainstates an association- 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
“Cognitive-Linguistic Translation, a higher order executive function, which works with working memory to support language learning, differentiated word-level impairment in dyslexia and syntax-level impairment in OWL LD.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
plainstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The conceptual model was also based on a multi-component working memory system that supports language learning.”
§ 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
plainstates a cause- 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.
In the paper
“considerable progress has been made through early intervention with explicit phonological awareness and decoding instruction to prevent SLDs in many students”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Foorman,, Arndt, & Crawford, 2011; Lyytinen et al., 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Such developmental OWL LD/SLI may manifest first as late onset of talking (Paul, Murray, Clancy, & Andrews, 1997; Thal, Bates, Goodman, & Jahn-Samilo, 1997; Thal, & Katich, 1996) or delayed combining of words due to weaknesses in syntax and related morphology”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Paul, Murray, Clancy, & Andrews, 1997; Thal, Bates, Goodman, & Jahn-Samilo, 1997; Thal, & Katich, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This language learning architecture supports the cross-code mapping (phonological, orthographic, and morphological) at the subword and word levels (e.g., Bahr, Silliman, Berninger, & Dow, 2012) underlying learning to read and write English, a morphophonemic orthography”
§ 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 Bahr, Silliman, Berninger, & Dow, 2012; Venezky, 1970, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The intervention studies showed that the nature of these difficulties, at the subword, word, or syntax levels, affected their patterns of RTI for the same interventions aimed at multiple levels of written language”
§ 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.
plainstates a cause- 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.
- 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
“Thus, developmental history including first emergence of an SLD and educational history of assessment, instruction, and ongoing manifestations of an SLD may be as relevant as test scores in defining and differentiating SLDs.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Defining and Diagnosing SLDs
hedgedstates an association- 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.
In the paper
“brain differences have been identified between students with mild phonological difficulties who respond to early intervention and those who have persisting, more complex SLDs”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Leonard, Eckert, Given, Berninger, & Eden, 2006 source
plainstates an association- 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.
In the paper
“there are still students with persisting SLDs in the upper elementary and middle school grades”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Christensen & Wauchope, 2009; Lovett, Barron, & Frijters, 2013; Samuelsson et al., 2008
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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“past research showing that this index or factor score is the best predictor on cognitive tests of academic achievement measures in referred and unreferred samples”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conceptual Frameworks for Defining and Diagnosing > Reconceptualizing cognitive measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Greenblatt, Mattis, & Trad, 1990; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- 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.
- 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
“Students with OWL LD may not show discrepancy using that definitional approach.”
§ 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.
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
“suggesting that that these working memory impairments may be unique hallmarks of dyslexia not shared with dysgraphia when dysgraphia occurs alone rather than co-occurring with dyslexia.”
§ 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.
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
“So there was reasonable evidence across test scores, parent-report, and self-report that the SLDs affecting written language were persisting during middle childhood and adolescence.”
§ 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Parent-reported history of learning difficulties accurately reflects the child's actual past and current struggles.
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.
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.
- 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
“The findings in Table 2 serve as a reminder that simple calculation of discrepancy between cognitive and academic achievement measures is not sufficient to identify specific kinds of SLDs.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“These results are consistent with those of Catts, Aldof, Hogan, & Ellis.(2005), who made the evidence-based case that dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI), as OWL LD is also referred to as, are not the same.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Catts, Aldof, Hogan, & Ellis.(2005)
boosted- 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.
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 OWL LD, impaired morphology or semantic/vocabulary knowledge may interfere with learning to spell.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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 claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The current practices for determining eligibility for special education do not take evidence-based differential diagnosis and treatment planning into account, but research shows that doing so can transform struggling students with OWL LD or dysgraphia or dyslexia into successful ones (e.g., Berninger & O’Malley May, 2011; Berninger, Winn et al., 2008).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
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 claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The current practices for determining eligibility for special education do not take evidence-based differential diagnosis and treatment planning into account, but research shows that doing so can transform struggling students with OWL LD or dysgraphia or dyslexia into successful ones (e.g., Berninger & O’Malley May, 2011; Berninger, Winn et al., 2008).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- 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 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 individual profile analyses support the plural suffix on specific learning disabilities.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
plainstates an association- 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.
In the paper
“Not all students in the US with dysgraphia, dyslexia, or OWL LD are being identified and provided with appropriate instruction throughout schooling to ensure they receive appropriate instruction for both their oral language and written language instructional needs as curriculum requirements change across the grades (e.g., see Treiman & Kessler, 2014).”
§ 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 Treiman & Kessler, 2014 source
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.
In the paper
“For example, research has shown that students with dysgraphia without reading problems have difficulty with word-specific spelling during middle childhood/adolescent transition (Berninger & Hayes, 2012) as also do students with dyslexia (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008) and OWL LD (Berninger & O-Malley-May, 2011).”
§ 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 Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008 source
plainstates an association- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This word-specific spelling task, which is used in much behavioral research on dyslexia beginning with the seminal work by Olson, Forsberg, Wise, and Rack (1994), takes into account not only orthographic, phonological, and morphological knowledge but also vocabulary meaning (e.g., Ehri, 1980), and may underlie oral word reading fluency and/or written spelling problems (Bowers & Wolf, 1993).”
§ 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 Olson, Forsberg, Wise, and Rack (1994)
- Not matchedcites Ehri, 1980
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bowers & Wolf, 1993 source
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.
In the paper
“For example, research has shown that students with dysgraphia without reading problems have difficulty with word-specific spelling during middle childhood/adolescent transition (Berninger & Hayes, 2012) as also do students with dyslexia (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008) and OWL LD (Berninger & O-Malley-May, 2011).”
§ 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 Berninger & O-Malley-May, 2011 source
plainstates an association- 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.
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
“Based on these results, groups did not differ in motion.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, research has shown that students with dysgraphia without reading problems have difficulty with word-specific spelling during middle childhood/adolescent transition (Berninger & Hayes, 2012) as also do students with dyslexia (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008) and OWL LD (Berninger & O-Malley-May, 2011).”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Berninger & Hayes, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- 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.
- 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
“This result may indicate that orthographic and morphological processing may be a relatively ignored source of difficulty in older students with persisting SLDs and one which requires specialized instruction during middle childhood and adolescence.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 1 > Results
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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 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, the brains of those with dyslexia may be inefficient in creating functional connections during word-specific spelling judgments.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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 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, common and unique brain bases underlie the same word-specific task for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD and even controls.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
plainstates an association- 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 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, based on behavioral and brain evidence, dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD appear to be unique SLDs, even if they share some commonalities.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
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 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
“In sum, Study 1 provided conceptually grounded, behavioral evidence that persisting SLDs during middle childhood and adolescence can be defined, identified, and diagnosed.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > Conclusions
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 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, not only how many functional connections are made but also to where in the brain they are made may differentiate dysgraphia, dyslexia, OWL LD, and controls.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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 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, those with OWL LD may not differ so much from controls on a word level spelling task not related to their hallmark syntactic-level impairment.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > 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.
In the paper
“Consistent with the highly connected human connectome (Caspers et al., 2012), brain systems involved in processing word-specific spellings are not insular modules, but rather complex systems of multiple, interacting neural networks.”
§ Differential Diagnosis of Dysgraphia, Dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence > STUDY 2 > Method
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Caspers et al., 2012
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.
- Not matched
- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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.
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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.
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates an association- 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
boostedstates an association- 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.
hedgedstates an association- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
plainstates an association- 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.
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates a cause- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
plainstates a cause- 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
boostedstates a cause- 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
plainstates an association- 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
plainstates an association- 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
hedgedstates an association- 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
plainstates a possible cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
Berninger, V. M., Abbott, R. D., Cook, C. R., & Nagy, W. E. (2016) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/0022219415617167 · Cited by 154
“…but not listening comprehension or oral expression (dyslexia), for listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression (OWL LD), or none of these impairments (controls; for this evidence-based differential diagnosis model, see Berninger et al., 2015; Silliman & Berninger, 2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationDysgraphia detection through machine learning
Drotár, P., & Dobeš, M. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78611-9 · Cited by 120
Why Children With Dyslexia Struggle With Writing and How to Help Them
Hebert, M. A., Kearns, D. M., Hayes, J. B., Bazis, P. S., & Cooper, S. (2018) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2018_lshss-dyslc-18-0024 · Cited by 107
“3Difficulty with handwriting, particularly in the absence of word recognition or language comprehension difficulty, is sometimes called dysgraphia (Berninger et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2018).”
BackgroundAn Overview of Dyslexia: Definition, Characteristics, Assessment, Identification, and Intervention
Roitsch, J., & Watson, S. M. R. (2019) · Science Journal of Education · doi:10.11648/j.sjedu.20190704.11 · Cited by 96
“Cognitively, it has been shown that individuals with dyslexia have difficulty with recognition of hidden shapes, [33] poor ability to shift their focus of attention, and deficits in aspects of working memory related to spoken and written language (the phonological loop) [34].”
BackgroundZingoni, A., Taborri, J., Panetti, V., Bonechi, S., Martínez, P. A., Pinzi, S., & Calabrò, G. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11104624 · Cited by 61
“Significant evidence of anomalies in dyslexic people’s cerebral morphology and operative processes has been found through the analysis of 3D scans of the brain obtained with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [11–15] and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) [16–19], respectively.”
Method
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
