Fuchs Lynn S, Fuchs Douglas, Prentice Karin
Kennedy Center Program of Research on Learning Accommodations at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
J Learn Disabil. 2004 Jul-Aug;37(4):293-306. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370040201.
This study assessed responsiveness to a 16-week mathematical problem-solving treatment as a function of students' risk for disability. Among 301 third graders, TerraNova scores were used to categorize students as at risk for both reading and mathematics disability (MDR/RDR; 20 control and 12 experimental), at risk for mathematics disability only (MDR-only; 5 and 8), at risk for reading disability only (RDR-only; 12 and 15), or not at risk (NDR; 60 and 69). Interactions among at-risk status, treatment, and time showed that as a function of treatment, MDR/RDR, MDR-only, and RDR-only students improved less than NDR students on computation and labeling, and MDR/RDR students improved less than all other groups on conceptual underpinnings. Exploratory regressions suggested that MDR/RDR students' math deficits or their underlying mechanisms explained a greater proportion of variance in responsiveness to problem-solving treatment than reading deficits or their underlying mechanisms.
本研究评估了作为学生残疾风险函数的对为期16周的数学问题解决治疗的反应性。在301名三年级学生中,使用TerraNova分数将学生分类为有阅读和数学残疾风险(MDR/RDR;20名对照和12名实验对象)、仅有数学残疾风险(仅MDR;5名和8名)、仅有阅读残疾风险(仅RDR;12名和15名)或无风险(NDR;60名和69名)。风险状态、治疗和时间之间的相互作用表明,作为治疗的函数,MDR/RDR、仅MDR和仅RDR学生在计算和标注方面的改善不如NDR学生,并且MDR/RDR学生在概念基础方面的改善不如所有其他组。探索性回归表明,MDR/RDR学生的数学缺陷或其潜在机制比阅读缺陷或其潜在机制在对问题解决治疗的反应性差异中解释了更大比例的方差。