Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cirino, P. T.
Right arrow Articles by Morris, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cirino, P. T.
Right arrow Articles by Morris, R. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Evaluation of the Double-Deficit Hypothesis in College Students Referred for Learning Difficulties

Paul T. Cirino

Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics (TIMES), University of Houston

Marlyne K. Israelian

Georgia State University

Mary K. Morris

Georgia State University

Robin D. Morris

Regents Center for Learning Disorders at Georgia State University

The present study explored the double-deficit hypothesis (DDH) in a sample of 146 college students with and without reading disabilities (RD). The results indicated that although both phonological awareness (PA) and visual naming speed (VNS) contributed to performance on measures of decoding and comprehension, their relative contribution was influenced both by the nature of the stimulus (word vs. nonword vs. text) and by the conditions of the task (timed vs. untimed). Similar results were obtained using an individual differences approach, or when between-group comparisons were made of individuals with deficits in PA or VNS. The relative representation of DDH subgroups in groups of adults with RD varied based on the classification criteria used to define RD. These results support the DDH, extend its applicability to adults, and have implications for diagnostic decision making.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No. 1, 29-43 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380010301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?