Cited by 21Developmental and Educational NeuropsychologyReading and Literacy DevelopmentCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

The developmental course of processing speed in children with and without learning disabilities

Weiler, Michael David, Forbes, Peter, Kirkwood, Michael, Waber, Deborah·2003·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

This study contrasted the development of processing speed in children with and without learning disabilities. We examined whether the same global mechanism presumed to be responsible for the normal developmental improvement in processing speed might also be associated with the processing speed deficiencies observed in children with learning impairments. One hundred and twenty-two children with learning disabilities in reading and/or math and 206 non-disabled community controls participated. There were no differences in relation of age to the development of processing speed for children with and without learning disabilities. We interpreted these results as suggesting that the underlying etiologies for the normal developmental change in processing speed and for the relative deficiencies in processing speed seen among children with learning disabilities were different.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-0965(03)00034-1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Processing speed is very sensitive to any form of cerebral insult.

    “Processing speed (PS), which refers to the speed with which simple cognitive operations can be performed, was included in the CB because it is very sensitive to any form of cerebral insult (see DeLuca & Kalmar, 2007; Weiler, Forbes, Kirkwood, & Waber, 2003) and to changes in development (e.g., Kail, 1991).”

    From I. NIH TOOLBOX COGNITION BATTERY (CB): INTRODUCTION AND PEDIATRIC DATA (2013) · cites this paper as Weiler, Forbes, Kirkwood, & Waber, 2003

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 57 · Cited by 21

Authors
Weiler, M. D., Forbes, P., Kirkwood, M., & Waber, D.
Affiliations
Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Weiler, Michael David
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
85
Issue
2
Pages
178-194
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083670115
Cited by
21
References
57
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p50hd033803-05)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50-HD33803)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
processing speed, learning disabilities, developmental course, children, reading disorders, math disabilities, age differences, cognitive development
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child Development, Female, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Male, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Case-Control Studies

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.

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