Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (LDRP) publishes articles addressing the nature and characteristics of children and adults with learning disabilities, program development, assessment practices, and instruction. In so doing, LDRP provides valuable information to professionals involved in a variety of different disciplines including special education, school psychology, counseling, reading, and medicine.

The goals of this study were to compare self-perceptions of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between 123 adolescents with learning disabilities (LD) and a group of 123 Non-LD peers, who were matched for their level of academic performance and gender, and to explore the relations between measures of self-perception and achievement. The results showed that students with LD reported lower academic self-efficacy and lower social self-efficacy. They also rated their mood as more negative and reported lower levels of hope and less investment of effort in their academic work. At the same time, no significant differences were found for emotional self-efficacy in comparison to the Non-LD peer group. In addition, among students with LD who were successful in their studies, a subgroup continued to report low levels of hope. The results demonstrated that even when the academic performance of students with LD is similar to their Non-LD peers, their specific and global self-perceptions continue to reflect their distress. It is not clear if these results represent past difficulties, day-to-day struggles, and/or future worries. Resilience models are proposed and research limitations are specified.

Research was conducted to ascertain if a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention was effective at improving the reading achievement of fourth through eighth grade students with learning disabilities or who were at risk for reading failure. Students were assigned to a treatment or control group via a stratified random sampling. Instructional components and training were based on best practices reported in the literature. Students receiving intervention significantly improved their reading speed and ability to answer inferential comprehension questions on passages that were reread. Compared to the control group, students in the intervention group also made significant gains in oral reading fluency on independent passages.

Abstract In this article, we describe the development and evaluation of a beginning spelling intervention for young children at risk of reading disability. We first summarize the literature that supports beginning spelling as an ideal method for strategically integrating the beginning reading big ideas of phonemic awareness and alphabetic understanding. We then summarize the literature on effective instructional principles for students at risk of reading disability. Next, we describe how instructional design was applied to the development of an intervention for young children at risk of reading disability, then summarize the findings of an experimental study supporting the effectiveness of this intervention. Finally, we provide selected examples from the spelling intervention to illustrate the findings' translation into instructional practice.

The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate middle school general education mathematics teachers' beliefs and self-perceived knowledge regarding teaching students with learning disabilities (LD) in inclusive classrooms. Teacher beliefs regarding administrative support and higher education teacher preparation were also examined. The Survey on Teaching Mathematics to Students With Learning Disabilities in Middle School was completed by 228 sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade general education mathematics inclusion teachers from 19 states. In addition, telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of 26 survey respondents. Frequency analyses were performed on the survey data, with χ2 tests comparing teachers on demographic variables. Follow-up interview responses were summarized to elaborate on the major research questions. The findings revealed three central issues: (1) teachers had a limited understanding of the mathematics learning needs of students with LD, (2) teacher collaboration was judged to be the most beneficial and available resource by general educators teaching students with LD in inclusive mathematics classrooms, and (3) teachers did not feel that teacher education programs at the preservice level and professional development at the inservice level were adequate in preparing them for teaching students with LD in inclusive mathematics classrooms. Implications and recommendations for teacher preparation and program implementation are provided.

Metacognition refers to knowledge about one's own cognition. The present study was designed to assess metacognitive skills that either precede or follow task engagement, rather than the processes that occur during a task. Specifically, we examined prediction and evaluation skills among children with (n = 17) or without (n = 179) mathematics learning disability (MLD), from grades 2 to 4. Children were asked to predict which of several math problems they could solve correctly; later, they were asked to solve those problems. They were asked to evaluate whether their solution to each of another set of problems was correct. Children's ability to evaluate their answers to math problems improved from grade 2 to grade 3, whereas there was no change over time in the children's ability to predict which problems they could solve correctly. Children with MLD were less accurate than children without MLD in evaluating both their correct and incorrect solutions, and they were less accurate at predicting which problems they could solve correctly. However, children with MLD were as accurate as their peers in correctly predicting that they could not solve specific math problems. The findings have implications for the usefulness of children's self-review during mathematics problem solving.

Learning Disabilities Research & PracticeVolume 20, Issue 4 p. 199-199 Introduction to the Miniseries on Intervention Research Addison Stone, Addison StoneSearch for more papers by this authorJoanne Carlisle, Joanne CarlisleSearch for more papers by this author Addison Stone, Addison StoneSearch for more papers by this authorJoanne Carlisle, Joanne CarlisleSearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 October 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00133.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume20, Issue4November 2005Pages 199-199 RelatedInformation

Developing, conducting, and sharing the results of a good intervention study is a challenging task, requiring considerable effort and expertise. I offer my reflections on this enterprise, commenting on the need for studying complex interventions, using multiple methodologies. I also argue that such research should be theoretically grounded and, more frequently than is currently the case, should test theoretical propositions. Finally, I comment on conducting research with limited funding, the importance of veracity when sharing research findings, and the need for more intense and extended preparation for new intervention researchers.

Learning Disabilities Research & PracticeVolume 20, Issue 4 p. 268-268 Guest Reviewers for Volume 20 First published: 03 October 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00142.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume20, Issue4November 2005Pages 268-268 RelatedInformation