Jordan N C, Levine S C, Huttenlocher J
Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.
J Learn Disabil. 1995 Jan;28(1):53-64. doi: 10.1177/002221949502800109.
This study examined the arithmetic calculation abilities of kindergarten and first-grade children with different patterns of cognitive functioning: children with low language but adequate spatial abilities (Low Language; n = 33, male = 42%); children with low spatial but adequate language abilities (Low Spatial; n = 21, male = 42%); children with general delays (Delayed; n = 21, male = 48%); and children with no language or spatial impairments (Nonimpaired; n = 33, male = 48%). Each child was given a series of addition and subtraction calculations presented as nonverbal problems, story problems, and number-fact problems. Story problems and number-fact problems require mastery of conventional verbal symbols, whereas nonverbal problems do not. The findings show that nonverbal, story, and number-fact problem formats are differentially sensitive to variation in cognitive ability. The Low Language group performed significantly worse than the Nonimpaired group on story problems but not on nonverbal problems or number-fact problems. The Delayed group performed significantly worse than the Nonimpaired group on nonverbal problems as well as on story problems but not on number-fact problems. The Low Spatial group did not differ significantly from the Nonimpaired group on any of the three problem types, although the overall performance of these children was weaker. When we adjusted for finger use on number-fact problems, the Nonimpaired group outperformed both the Low Language and the Delayed groups but not the Low Spatial group. Thus, the finding that the Low Language and Delayed groups perform as well as the Nonimpaired group on number-fact problems is attributable to their greater finger use.
语言能力低但空间能力足够的儿童（低语言组；n = 33，男性占42%）；空间能力低但语言能力足够的儿童（低空间组；n = 21，男性占42%）；存在全面发育迟缓的儿童（发育迟缓组；n = 21，男性占48%）；以及无语言或空间障碍的儿童（无损伤组；n = 33，男性占48%）。每个孩子都要进行一系列加法和减法计算，这些计算以非语言问题、文字应用题和数字事实问题的形式呈现。文字应用题和数字事实问题需要掌握传统的语言符号，而非语言问题则不需要。研究结果表明，非语言、文字应用题和数字事实问题形式对认知能力的变化具有不同的敏感性。低语言组在文字应用题上的表现明显比无损伤组差，但在非语言问题或数字事实问题上并非如此。发育迟缓组在非语言问题以及文字应用题上的表现明显比无损伤组差，但在数字事实问题上并非如此。低空间组在这三种问题类型中的任何一种上与无损伤组相比均无显著差异，尽管这些孩子的总体表现较弱。当我们对数字事实问题中手指的使用情况进行调整后，无损伤组的表现优于低语言组和发育迟缓组，但不优于低空间组。因此，低语言组和发育迟缓组在数字事实问题上的表现与无损伤组一样好这一发现归因于他们更多地使用手指。
