Search results for ‘Subject term:"learning disabilities"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Guide for calculating and interpreting effect sizes and confidence intervals in intellectual and developmental disability research studies
- Authors:
- DUNST Carl J., HAMBY Deborah W.
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 37(2), June 2012, pp.89-19.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
Null hypothesis significance testing, which uses probability levels to evaluate the results of studies, has been the most commonly used method for evaluating the results from intellectual and developmental disability research studies. This paper argues that effect sizes and their confidence intervals are better indices for establishing the impact of different kinds of interventions. It provides a non-technical description of methods for calculating effect sizes in intellectual and developmental disability studies, and uses different hypothetical studies to illustrate how null hypothesis significance testing and effect size findings can result in quite different outcomes and therefore conflicting results. Sources of information on effect size calculators are included to provide researchers with data analysis procedures for computing effect sizes and confidence intervals for different types of research designs and studies.
Statistics of Japanese with disabilities
- Author:
- SATO Hisao
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Social Policy and Social Work, 6, March 2002, pp.61-75.
- Publisher:
- Japan College of Social Work
Although current statistics offer valuable insights, there is the need to discover cross disability and cross life stage prevalence of persons with disabilities. This paper offers an evaluation of current statistics and offers suggestions for further research.
Comparison of instruments for the diagnosis of dementia in individuals with intellectual disability
- Authors:
- HOEKMAN Joop, MAASKANT Marian A.
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 27(4), December 2002, pp.296-309.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
This article describes the agreement among the results (dementia/no dementia) of three instruments used for the potential diagnosis of dementia in persons with intellectual disability. The instruments are: the Dementia Questionnaire for Mentally Retarded Persons (DMR), the Checklist with Symptoms of Dementia (CLD) and the Delayed Match-to-Sample Test (DMTS). The results were compared with the expert opinion of a physician/educational specialist/psychologist. The participants were 329 adults affiliated with centres for people with intellectual disability in The Netherlands. It was found that the agreement among the three instruments was low. The agreement between the expert opinion and the results of the tests was also found to be low. It was concluded that the instruments do not mutually agree upon which of the adults can be regarded as dementing or not dementing and they also provide inconsistent agreement with the expert opinion when dementia is present. It was further concluded that it is not advisable to use a single instrument when attempting to diagnose dementia in people with intellectual disability.