English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW). This study investigated the reliability and validity of two proposed PSW methods: the concordance/discordance method (C/DM) and cross battery assessment (XBA) method. Cognitive assessment data for 139 adolescents demonstrating inadequate response to intervention was utilized to empirically classify participants as meeting or not meeting PSW LD identification criteria using the two approaches, permitting an analysis of: (a) LD identification rates, (b) agreement between methods, and (c) external validity. LD identification rates varied between the 2 methods depending upon the cut point for low achievement, with low agreement for LD identification decisions. Comparisons of groups that met and did not meet LD identification criteria on external academic variables were largely null, raising questions of external validity. This study found low agreement and little evidence of validity for LD identification decisions based on PSW methods. An alternative may be to use multiple measures of academic achievement to guide intervention.

Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification.