Search

The diagnostic labels of "dyslexia" and "reading learning disability" can be considered from a theoretical point of view as practically synonymous, according to the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5; APA, 2013). However, the teachers' choice of one term or another carries certain connotations that could have a significant influence on their perceptions. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the labels of dyslexia and reading learning disability influence the feeling of self-efficacy of a group of pre-service teachers. Self-efficacy beliefs refer to the judgment that a person makes about their own ability to perform a certain action or task successfully. According to previous research, the study of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs is relevant because they are directly related to the academic performance of students. Moreover, these beliefs are also related to teachers' attitudes towards educational inclusion of students with specific needs of educational support, in which students with dyslexia or reading learning disability are included. In this study, a questionnaire of 14 Likert-type questions with 9 options was administered to 242 students of the Early Childhood and Primary Education Teachers degrees of the University of Valencia. These students had no previous knowledge on the subject that was treated in the questionnaire in the moment that they filled it out. The instrument was adapted from a questionnaire used in the study of Gibbs & Elliot (2015). These authors adapted it from the original one, Teachers' Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction Scale (TSELI), designed by Tschannen-Moran & Johnson (2011). The questions were about the beliefs that pre-service teachers had about their own effectiveness and ability in teaching students with dyslexia or reading learning disability. There were also some questions regarding participants' demographic information. A group of pre-service teachers filled out a version of the questionnaire asking about dyslexia and another group filled out another version where the word "dyslexia" was replaced by the term "reading learning disability". After collecting the data, a statistical analysis was carried out with two purposes. One of them was to know if the use of two different diagnostic labels influences the pre-service teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. The other one was to find out if there were statistically significant differences regarding gender and the different specializations that the pre-service teachers were studying (early childhood education or primary education). After data analysis, statistically significant differences were obtained, finding that the term "dyslexia" seemed to be perceived by pre-service teachers as a more difficult problem to face compared to the term "reading learning disability". No differences were found between gender or specialty (early childhood/primary education). Therefore, the main finding of this study is that the use of certain diagnostic labels influences teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. More specifically, the interpretation of this result in this research is that pre-service teachers conceive the term "dyslexia" as a medical concept, what can be interpreted for students as a more difficult diagnostic to intervene and modify through education in comparison with the term "reading learning disability". This fact indicates that during initial teacher training, the understanding of the terms "dyslexia" and "reading learning disability" should be studied in greater depth. Additionally, this paper can contribute to show the importance of the decision made by professionals regarding the exact term they use when preparing the psychological reports of the studezents with special educational needs. These findings do not exactly agree with the results obtained in previous studies on this topic, and this is discussed in the discussion section. Moreover, we also indicate the limitations of the study and future lines of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de la Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Neuropsiquiatria and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Praxis Filosófica is the property of Universidad del Valle and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Psychiatry is going through a deep crisis, both as a scientific discipline as a medical speciality. In the present paper we consider in length what we consider to be the three aspects that could explain the situation: the recurring disappointment in classification; the persistence of dualistic perspectives in research; and third, the continuing of a localizacionism inadequate to explain normal and pathological behaviour. Psychiatry lacks a definition of mental disorder that covers all situations, there are difficulties in drawing a precise distinction between normality and psychopathology, and the majority of these "diagnostic" categories are not validated by biological criteria. Furthermore, there is still a debate on the nature of the symptoms of mental disorders, a confusion classification and diagnosis and a preoccupation with the growing inflation of diagnostic categories. Dualism is at the core of psychopathology, simply because Cartesian dualism led to the development of modern science, but the price paid includes the split-up of mental and physical phenomena and illnesses and of psychiatry and the rest of medicine. Localizationism, that is, the approach to brain function considering that particular pychological functions are carried out by particular brain areas or centers, helps to understand many clinical and psychological phenomena, but have largely fild in explaining the nature of most mental disorders. In a second part of this article we provide some strategies that could help to go beyond the present impasse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuadernos de Trabajo Social is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)