Gerald M. Senf

Memory and Attention Factors in Specific Learning Disabilities

In previous research, children with inadequate reading skills were found to be particularly deficient in recalling three visual items followed by three auditory items (modality recall) when the items were presented rapidly as three audiovisual pairs of simultaneous, discrepant items. When required to recall the three itempairs in their actual order of arrival, however, the disabled readers were as successful as the normal controls. In the present experiment, we assessed (a) whether these effects could be replicated in another learning disabled sample possessing very different sociocultural features, and (b) whether the modality recall deficiency, if replicated, could be explained by sensory masking resulting from the simultaneous display of the auditory and visual signals. The results of previous work were highly replicable: learning disabled children could generally recall the items in their actual order of arrival as well as the normal control group but, as before, were highly deficient in recalling the items in two modality sets. The modality recall deficiency was not attenuated when the items were staggered, thus eliminating the simultaneous audiovisual presentation and the possibility of sensory masking. Higher-order cognitive processes were implicated as bases for the deficient modality recall performance. Auditory distraction, auditory dominance, deficient visual information processing, and deficient information-organization processes were cited as possible sources of the deficient modality recall and, by implication, as bases for the reading disability.

Audiovisual Integration in Retarded Readers

Sixteen retarded readers and an equal number of controls were compared with respect to their performances on four matching tasks: (1) visual-spatial/visual-spatial, (2) visual-temporal/visual-temporal, (3) auditory-temporal/auditory-temporal, and (4) auditory-temporal/visual-spatial. The results suggested that the visual-spatial/visual-spatial and the auditory-temporal/auditory-temporal tasks discriminated between the two groups while the others did not. These findings were discussed as not supporting the Birch and Belmont hypothesis that auditory-visual integration is a critical skill in which retarded readers are deficient. An alternative explanation offered for the present findings was that memory and/or perceptual factors may account for performance deficits in retarded readers.

A Perspective on the Definition of LD

n last month’s issue of the Journal, I Keogh described the necessity and potential of researchers and practitioners working together to construct a sound data base in learning disabilities. In this issue, Hallahan speaks of the role research plays in advancing our knowledge of learning disabilities. While Keogh called for a closer interaction between the practitioner and the researcher, Hallahan cautions us all that researchers’ findings must necessarily be taken as tentative. At the same time, he is correct in pointing out that a sound empirical base is a necessary requisite for aviable, developing profession. As one who has devoted considerable energy to research, I am in agreement with both Keogh’s and Hallahan’s stance. I agree that the specificity of research knowledge suffers from its detachment from the finely textured perspective of the practitioner. The definitive research study is so rare as to be mythical. AMBIGUOUS DEFINITIONS IMPEDE THE FIELD

State Initiative in Learning Disabilities Illinois' Project Screen: Report 1: The SCReen Early Identification Procedure

This paper is the first in a series of four articles which represent a synopsis of a 3,500 page final report on Project SCREEN, submitted by a contractor (CPA, Inc.) to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois. This article concerns itself with the SCREEN assessment procedure which represented the core of Project SCREEN. This report is descriptive only; technical information will appear in other publications.

State Initiative in Learning Disabilities Illinois' Project SCREEN: Report III: Local and State Opinion Regarding the Concept of Learning Disabilities

This paper is the third in a series of reports concerning Project SCREEN. The first described the multifaceted, group administered, early identification instrument called SCREEN (Senf & Comrey 1975). The second focused on a theoretical discussion of the learning disability concept derived from a monograph by Senf (1974) and on an empirical report of special education cooperative directors (Sushinsky 1974) regarding their attitudes toward learning disabilities (Senf & Sushinsky 1975). The final paper in this series will describe a variety of service materials, reference sources, and monographs. The present article reviews the results of an in-depth study of five Illinois special education cooperatives, conducted by the second author (Grossman 1974). It also describes the attitudes of state learning disability coordinators in 25 states regarding the learning disability construct (Senf & Kirk 1974).

Readership Survey Results

T yield information regarding the location and salary levels of jobs in the LD field, a prepaid postcard survey card was placed in the February Journal. Seven hundred sixteen (716) responses were obtained in the three weeks prior to analysis. Forty-three respondents were suggesting job titles to investigate in next years survey, resulting in 673 respondents whose characteristics are presented in Table 1. As few responses were received from persons holding MD and OD degrees, data are not presented for those degrees but the information provided was included in the analyses. Characteristics are presented for each of the six roles represented in the survey and for the entire sample in the column to the far right. With the exception of Number (of persons) in each Role, Age, and Income, all entries are percentages, e.g., 62% of the Administrators were female, 38% male. Age is presented in years, Income in dollars computed as the midpoint of the salary interval checked by the respondent, e.g.,

Introducing the New Journal and Its Editor

12,000-14,000 was treated as

Report IV: Service Materials and Content Monographs

12,999. The Geographic Areas are described in the footnote. All differences noted are statistically significant at least at the .01 level. The sample is over three quarters female but varies significantly with role; females are disproportionately represented in the Teacher of LD category, males in the College Teacher and Practitioner (clinician, therapist, physician) category. Sex was also highly related to highest degree with only 8% of the females holding doctorates compared to 34% of the males while 18% had only BA degrees compared to 4% of the males (not in Table 1). Females tend to be employed predominantly in Suburban areas (48%) compared to Urban (27%) or Rural (25%) while males have the same Urban representation (27%) but are more predominant in Rural areas (37%) and less than females in Suburbs (37%) (data not in Table 1). Whether or not these patterns represent hiring preferences of employers

Variables Affecting Immediate Memory for Bisensory Stimuli: Eye-Ear Analogue Studies of Dichotic Listening.

A remarkably swift glance should indicate that there have been some significant changes in the Journal of Learning Disabilities. Over the years of our sometimes lonely but rewarding existence, we like virtually everybody else in the “field” tried desperately to bring coherence, some element of sanity, order to the total complex comprising learning disabilities; our major thrust was to help to help everybody, the clinician, the teacher, the researcher, the academic disciplines and, particularly the children themselves. It is the last element which constantly gave us pause. As thousands and thousands of carefully screened papers were translated into type, bound, and mailed, there was always one nagging doubt: Are the children benefiting? Are we helping to organize the thinking, the skills, the strong sense of vocations of thousands of lonely people engaged in the struggle to do more and better by the universe of children whose deprivations ultimately determine the rest of their lives? I am personally proud of the efforts all concerned with JLD made. Some elements of our editorial and publishing efforts, while well-intentioned, perhaps contributed to more confusion and more chaos. But, all in all, we were the pivotal communications link to the disparate and unrelating professionals who were bound together by a single goal pragmatic impact on a diffuse problem that seems to worsen with each passing day. ;We locked ourselves up and did a hard job of thinking some time ago. We were convinced that the time had come to introduce a new element and a new central force into the publication. We needed the best material but organized and expressed in such a way that both the researchers and the people on the daily firing line would, at last, begin talking to each other, feeding each other with a greater degree of mutual support that, alack, has too often been missing. We searched for a specific key person someone not wedded to ideology, free of rancor and self-serving vested interest. We wanted somebody with absolute commitment and thoroughgoing professional competence and credentials. We looked for somebody with such personal honesty and deep commitment to the kids that he would keep them foremost in his efforts but also somebody who understood the problems of all communities the scholars and the teachers, the clinicians, and the thinkers, across all disciplines and across all professional groupings.

Development of bisensory memory in culturally deprived, dyslexic, and normal readers.

This is the final paper in a four-part series describing the products of a statewide learning disability program in Illinois called Project SCREEN. The previous articles described (1) a newly developed, multifaceted, group early identification instrument called SCREEN© (Senf & Comrey 1975), (2) the theoretical conception of learning disabilities and a survey of Illinois special education cooperative directors (Senf & Sushinsky 1975), and (3) attitudes regarding learning disabilities expressed by Illinois professionals and state LD consultants nationwide (Senf & Grossman 1975). This article describes a series of resource documents produced under the auspices of Project SCREEN.