Words: 1520
Running head: SCHOLARLY ARTICLE CRITIQUE Jennifer P. McCord Scholarly Article Critique Grand Canyon University Scholarly Article Critique The problem as stated appeared to be of profound significance for determining how to best benefit children with cleft type who have a learning disability in reading. While this may be true, the study resonates that there are signs of inconclusiveness. To specifically address shortcomings to the study, however, the stated problem was not clearly visible to an average reader.
The article required several readings to establish the direction the researchers were going with the study. As well as, why the researchers felt this study needed to be done. Undoubtedly, it was limited to the researchers’ capabilities and available resources. This study compared the responses of children with cleft lip and palate to children with cleft palate only who were evaluated using the same set of neuropsychological assessment variables on the basis of the specific type of reading ability being experienced.
It has previously been shown that children with cleft lip and palate are more likely to display only a variable expressive deficit, while children with a cleft of the palate only were found to have a higher frequency of underlying symbolic language deficit in addition to verbal expressive problems (Richman, 1980). Previous studies have demonstrated that the ability to segment words into phonetic units (phonic segmentation) is often deficient in children who are reading disabled (Shankweiler and Leiberman, 1976). The concise and well stated purpose of this study clearly agreed with the title of the article.
In as much as it was necessary to read and reread the article several times, finally the point of the study was understandable. Moreover, the purpose did agree with the title and should have had a significant impact on educating children with language deficiencies. Objectively, the purpose of the study was twofold. The authors stated that the purpose of the study was to compare children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) to children with cleft palate (CP) only on cognitive, neuropsychological variables, and intelligence in order to assess the possible differential relationship to specific skill areas to their possible reading problems.
In addition, the purpose sought primarily to determine if the learning disability children with cleft had in reading was more closely connected to peripheral speech problems or to symbolic language problems by administering a series of test to them. Consequently, the authors included two hypotheses which were constructed to help in achieving the objectives of the study. The first hypothesis was that children with only phonetic word errors will have very few other cognitive disabilities and their errors may be related to peripheral speech problems only.
The second hypothesis was that the reading problems of the children who have either sight word errors or reading comprehension problems may be directly related to neuropsychological and or other language deficiencies. These hypotheses were testable and served to help clearly define the problem. Importantly, the author stated that the study was deemed necessary because previous studies revealed that high incidence of significant reading problems had been demonstrated in relatively high proportions among children with cleft.
Equally important, the authors stated further investigation of the neuropsychological correlates with reading disability in children with cleft appears warranted in order to further delineate the relationship of peripheral speech versus symbolic language to the reading process in these children. As part of the University of Iowa Cleft Palate Research Program, psychologist administered pre-screening assessments to each potential subject used in the study.
The Cleft Palate Research Program routinely checked and screened elementary age children for learning disabilities in reading. The subjects who were chosen after the initial screenings process were put through a battery of neuropsychological tasks. The sample was generated from participants who volunteered. The participants represented males and females ranging between the age of 8 and 13; 14 males and 10 females of each cleft type; and matched them according to sex, age, IQ, and levels of reading ability.
In order to be a participant, the authors listed the following as criteria: the subject had to be reading at least one grade level behind on the Wide Range Achievement Test, Average Full Scale IQ on the WISC, be within the third to sixth grade in school, the evidence of cleft lip and palate or cleft palate only had to be present with no other genetic syndromes or neurological anomalies which might be related to intellectual or learning process, and no significant hearing loss at the time of testing.
To review the methodology in relation to the study, a substantially precise battery of neuropsychological tasks was used to compile the data for this article. The list of neuropsychological tasks was inclusive of the following assessments: * Reading Assessment ??? Standard Reading Inventory * WISC IQ ??? Full scale, Verbal, Performance * Visual perception – Line Orientation, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test * Language Association – Word Fluency, Auditory Association, Picture Association * Auditory Memory ??? Digits, Words, Sentences * Sentence Repetition * Digit Span: Forward and Backward Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test * Wide Range Achievement Test ??? Word Recognition * Speech ??? Base on a 1 thru 7 scale of connected speech samples. 1 = normal speech, 7 = severe The reliability and validity of this scale has been demonstrated in several previous studies (Morrison, 1955; Spriestersbach, Darley, and Morris, 1956; Morris, 1962; Moll, 1968) To review the results in comparison to the objective and purpose, the children with cleft lip and palate scored substantially higher versus the cleft palate only children on memory for words and sentences an in language association tasks.
This included auditory association, word fluency, picture association, and standardized reading inventory. No significant differences were found between the two groups on visual perception skills, on visual motor or graph motor skills or in word recognition level. Both groups were almost equally below the 100 mean that is measured by the Wide Range Achievement Test. The cleft palate only children subsequently made significant more non-phonetic errors. Based on the findings, the greater reading challenges exist with the cleft palate only group. These challenges appear to be indicative of language deficiencies in general.
Due to the pervasiveness of their learning disability in reading, the author concluded that this group should benefit from corrective measures that signaled meeting their educational needs on a larger scope. With the Cleft lip and palate group, the reading challenges appear to be associated with a peripheral speech deficiency that is phonetically related. In discussing the results, the authors exhibited little or no confidence in their findings in that they used the word probably too many times in their explanation of what was reflected in the results.
In summary, although, the paragraphs could have been better organized, the research appeared to be adequate. Overall, it was quite an interesting article that very likely contributed significantly to the field of research. The implication is that it should continue to do so in the future. Invaluable well organized tables were included in the article. This gave added visual effect. As was fore stated, for a much easier read, the article could have been better organized. The article did precisely as it was purposed.
However, I concur with the author’s indication that further examination of groups of cleft palate children only versus cleft lip and palate children with and without a reading problem on neuropsychological test performance may be indicated to determine whether the findings are related only to a reading disability or to some more pervasive deficiency. Therefore, it stands to reason, the study is arguably inconclusive. References Eliason, M. & Richman, L. C. (1984). Type of Reading Disability Related to Cleft Type and Neuropsychological Patterns. Cleft Palate Journal. Vol. 1 No. 1, 1-6. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Moll, K. L. , (1968). Speech characteristics with cleft lip and palate. In D. Spriesterbach and D. Sherman (Eds. ), Cleft Palate and Communication, Academic Press, New York. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Morris, H. L. , (1962). Communication skills of children with cleft lip and palates, J. Speech Hear. Res. , 5: 79-90. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. itt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Morrison, S. , (1955). Measuring the severity of articulation defectiveness, J. Speech Hear. Dis. , 20: 347-351 Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Richman, L. C. , (1980). Cognitive patterns and learning disabilities in cleft palate children with verbal deficits, J. Speech Hear. Res. , 23: 447-456. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Shankweiler, D. , and Liberman, I. Y. , (1976).
Exploring the relations between reading and speech. In R. M. Knights, and D. J. Bakker (Eds. ), The Neuropsychology of Learning Disorders: Theoretical Approaches. University Park Press, Baltimore, Md. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf Spriesterbach, D. C. , Darley, F. L. , and Morris, H. L. , (1956). Language skills in children with cleft lips and palates, J. Speech Hear. Dis. , 21: 436-445. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://digital. library. pitt. edu/c/cleftpalate/pdf/e20986v21n1. 02. pdf .