Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The forgotten learning disability: epidemiology of written-language disorder in a population-based birth cohort (1976-1982), Rochester, Minnesota

Katusic, Slavica K., Colligan, Robert C., Weaver, Amy L., Barbaresi, William J.·2009·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.2008-2098
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to report the incidence rates and other epidemiologic characterizations of written-language disorder. There have been no epidemiologic studies on the incidence of written-language disorder in the United States, and the use of a population-based birth cohort, longitudinally followed, is the most powerful method for reaching this objective. METHODS. In this population-based, retrospective birth cohort study, subjects included 5718 children born between 1976 and 1982 in Rochester, Minnesota, who remained in the community after 5 years of age. Records from all public and nonpublic schools, medical facilities, and private tutorial services were reviewed and results of all individually administered IQ and achievement tests, and extensive medical, educational, and socioeconomic information, were collected. The essential features of writing problems from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision were included in our operationalized definition of written-language disorder. Written-language disorder incident cases were established by using research criteria based on 3 formulas (regression-based discrepancy, nonregression-based discrepancy, and low achievement). RESULTS. Cumulative incidence rates of written-language disorder varied from 6.9% to 14.7% depending on the formula. Boys were 2 to 3 times more likely to be affected than girls regardless of the formula. Among all written-language disorder cases (N = 806), 25% (n = 203) had written-language disorder without a reading disability. Specifics of the writing problems were identified for 87% (n = 702) of written-language disorder cases. CONCLUSIONS. In this population-based birth cohort of school-aged children, written-language disorder was at least as frequent as reading disabilities and significantly more frequent among boys than girls.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2008-2098

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Grigorenko EL. Rethinking disorders of spoken and written language: generating workable hypotheses. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2007;28(6):478–486 · DOI
  2. Hooper SR. The language of written language: an introduction to the special issue. J Learn Disabil. 2002;35(1):2–6 · DOI
  3. Hooper SR, Montgomery J, Swartz C, et al. Measurement of written language expression. In: Lyon GR, ed. Frames of Reference for the Assessment of Learning Disabilities: New Views on Measurement Issues. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 1994:375–417
  4. Levine MD, Oberklaid F, Meltzer L. Developmental output failure: a study of low productivity in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 1981;67(1):18–25 · DOI
  5. Berninger VW, Hart T. Reading disabilities: diagnosis and component processes. In: Joshi RM, Leong CK, eds. From Research to Clinical Assessment of Reading and Writing Disorders: The Unit of Analysis Problem. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1992:66–89 · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1988-7_2
  6. Hooper SR, Montgomery JW. Prevalence of writing problems across three middle school samples. Sch Psychol Rev. 1993;22(4):610–622 · DOI
  7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000
  8. Hooper SR, Swartz CW, Wakely MB, de Kruif RE, Montgomery JW. Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. J Learn Disabil. 2002;35(1):57–68 · DOI
  9. Edwards L. Writing instruction in kindergarten: examining an emerging area of research for children with writing and reading difficulties. J Learn Disabil. 2003;36(2):136–148 · DOI
  10. Berninger VW, Nielsen KH, Abbott RD, Wijsman E, Raskind W. Gender differences in severity of writing and reading disabilities. J Sch Psychol. 2008;46(2):151–172 · DOI
  11. Mausner JS, Kramer S. Epidemiology: An Introductory Text. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co; 1985:51
  12. Liddell FD. The development of cohort studies in epidemiology: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(12):1217–1237 · DOI
  13. Katusic SK, Colligan RC, Barbaresi WJ, Schaid DJ, Jacobsen SJ. Potential influence of migration bias in birth cohort studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1998;73(11):1053–1062 · DOI
  14. Kurland LT, Elveback LR, Nobrega FT. Population studies in Rochester and Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1900–1968. In: Kessler II, Levin ML, eds. The Community as an Epidemiologic Laboratory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1970:47–70
  15. Fletcher JM, Shaywitz SE, Shankweiler DP, et al. Cognitive profiles of reading disability: comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86(1):6–23 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.6 · Paper page
  16. Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM, Holahan JM, Shaywitz SE. Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability:results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. J Learn Disabil. 1992;25(10):639–648 · DOI
  17. Stanovich KE, Siegel LS. Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities. A regression-based test of the phonological-core-variable-difference model. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86(1):24–53 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 · Paper page
  18. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Measures of disease frequency and association. In: Mayrent SL, ed. Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1987:54–66
  19. Lerner JW. Children with Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis, Teaching Strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1976:621
  20. Lyon GR. Learning disabilities. In: Marsh E, Barkley R, eds. Child Psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996:422
  21. Berninger V, Fuller F. Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: implications for assessing of writing disabilities in primary grade children. J Sch Psychol. 1992;30(4):363–382 · DOI
  22. Freeman C. Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, US Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences. NCES 2005-016; 2004 · DOI
  23. Lyon GR. Learning disabilities. Future Child. 1996;6(1):54–76 · DOI
  24. Dombrowski SC, Kamphaus RW, Reynolds CR. After the demise of the discrepancy: proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2004;35(4):364–372 · DOI
  25. Haager D. Promises and cautions regarding using response to intervention with English language learners. Learn Disabil Q. 2007;30(3):213–218 · doi:10.2307/30035565
  26. Gregg N, Scott SS. Definition and documentation: theory, measurement, and the courts. J Learn Disabil. 2000;33(1):5–13 · DOI
  27. Stuebing KK, Fletcher JM, LeDoux JM, Lyon GR, Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. Validity of the IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: a meta-analysis. Am Educ Res J. 2002;39(2):469–518 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Mercer CD, Jordan LA, Allsopp DH, Mercer AR. Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learn Disabil Q. 1996;19(4):217–232 · DOI
  29. McDermott PA, Goldberg MM, Watkins MW, Stanley JL, Glutting JJ. A nationwide epidemiologic modeling study of LD: risk, protection, and unintended impact. J Learn Disabil. 2006;39(3):230–251 · DOI
  30. Cellucci T, Remsperger P, McGlade E. Psycho-educational evaluations for university students in one clinic. Psychol Rep. 2007;101(2):501–511 · DOI
  31. Graham S, Weintraub N. A review of handwriting research: progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educ Psychol Rev. 1996;8(1):7–87 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Berninger V. The “write stuff” for preventing and treating writing disabilities. Perspectives. 1999;25(2):20–22
  33. Heath NL, Toste JR, Roberts E. Learning disabilities research: ten years in review. Thalamus. 2007;25(1):9–17
  34. Moats LC, Lyon GR. Learning disabilities in the United States: advocacy, science, and the future of the field. J Learn Disabil. 1993;26(5):282–294 · DOI
  35. Hammill DD. A brief look at the learning disabilities movement in the United States. J Learn Disabil. 1993;26(5):295–310 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Katusic, S. K., Colligan, R. C., Weaver, A. L., & Barbaresi, W. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Health Sciences Research, Divisions of Epidemiology
  • Department of Psychiatry and Psychology
  • Biostatistics
  • Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2009-05-01
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
1306-1313
ISSN
  • 0031-4005
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2008-2098
Cited by
104
References
2
Language
en

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.