Search

An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and achievement profiles of students with giftedness and learning disabilities (G&LD) is needed to address their asynchronous development. This study examines the subtests and error factors in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement--Third Edition (KTEA-3) for strength and weakness patterns of students with G&LD in higher and lower level thinking skills by comparing G&LD students (n = 196) with academically gifted (GT; n = 69) and specific learning disability (SLD) students (n = 90). Several one-way MANCOVAs were conducted with subtest error factor scores as dependent variables and grouping variable (G&LD, GT, or SLD) as the independent variable. The G&LD means scores across subtests were in between the two control groups. On many higher level thinking tasks, the G&LD group scored similar to the gifted group. The results support the use of error analysis to gain further understanding into the profile of students with G&LD.

Children with a specific learning disability in reading/writing (LDRW) and/or language impairment (LI) are likely to have difficulties across all areas of academic achievement, as a great deal of teaching and learning depends on intact reading skill and linguistic communication. Despite a large number of studies examining academic difficulties among these groups, there has been minimal research investigating types of errors made on tests of academic achievement. The present study compared academic error types of children with LDRW (Group 1) and children with LI (Group 3) to two distinct demographically matched control groups (Groups 2 and 4) using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. Findings indicate that children in the LDRW group or LI group, on average, made a greater number of errors than their matched counterparts. Statistically significant differences, with moderate effect sizes, were found between examinees in the clinical groups and their respective matched control groups across several error categories. Some of the largest differences were found in the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. Most importantly, the patterns of errors made by LDRW and LI samples differed notably on the various tasks, providing new insights about these clinical samples.

Children's oral language skills typically begin to develop sooner than their written language skills; however, the four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) then develop concurrently as integrated strands that influence one another. This research explored relationships between students' errors in language comprehension of passages across oral and written modalities (listening and reading) and in language expression across oral and written modalities (speaking and writing). The data for this study were acquired during the standardization of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3). Correlational analyses from the total sample (n = 2,443-3,552) and within grade bands revealed low to moderate correlations (0.26-0.50). No evidence of convergent or divergent validity was found when comparing correlations of "same-name" error types (e.g., inferential errors across modalities) with correlations of "different-name" error types. These results support previous research findings and hypotheses that language by ear, eye, hand, and mouth are separable but interacting systems that differ in more ways than modality of input/output.

Copyright of Acta Geológica Lilloana is the property of Fundacion Miguel Lillo 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.)

Despite the undeniable effect of vaccination against COVID-19 in reducing disease severity, there is still a need to monitor and limit SARS-CoV-2 circulation and transmission. Thus, this study evaluated the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 genome on the surfaces of highly touched objects manipulated in the biological sample collection point and at the reception unit of the diagnostic laboratory. Surfaces were sampled once a week, for 6 weeks, between September 18th and October 23rd, 2020. RT-qPCR was used for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The coolers for biological sample transportation and the envelope containing the patient form were the objects with the highest occurrence of viral genome detection, although it was detected in each object in only two of the 6 evaluations. And the SARS-CoV-2 genome was detected just once on the vehicle steering wheel, computer keyboard, bathroom door handle and disinfection bench. The virus genome was not detected in any object on three of the six evaluations. And eight was the largest number of surfaces contaminated by the virus genome on one occasion. The reduced incidence of object contamination by the SARS-CoV-2 genome can be explained by the exposure of the objects to environmental conditions and the adoption of virus-spread containment measures. It can also reflect the low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 during the study's development period. Despite the low frequency of SARS-CoV-2 genome detection, our findings show that the virus was present in the environment at some point. This highlights the importance of adopting personal preventive measures to reduce respiratory virus spread, especially during epidemics and outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyze the generalizability of the Göteborg‐2 findings to a North American cohort. Methods: We replicated the Göteborg‐2 inclusion criteria in our Henry Ford Health (HFH) cohort, by identifying all patients 50–60 years old who had a PSA test from 2013 to 2018. The first PSA within the study period was considered PSA at entry, and included in the analysis. Chi‐square test was used to compare categorical variables between the Göteborg‐2 and HFH cohort, with a particular focus on Black men, who were also analyzed separately. Results: The HFH patients included in the cohort were 49 456, of which 8562 were Black. In patients within the entire HFH cohort, HFH Black cohort, Göteborg Reference cohort, and Göteborg Experimental cohort, the rate of PSA ≥3 ng/mL was, respectively, 6.8%, 10.2%, 6.8%, and 6.6%. The rate of biopsy performed was, respectively, 1.8%, 4.1%, 5.8%, and 2.5%. PCa was found in, respectively, 1.4%, 3.0%, 2.3%, and 1.5%; Gleason score 3 + 3 in, respectively, 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.2%, and 0.6%; Gleason score > 3 + 3 in, respectively, 0.9%, 2.2%, 1.1%, and 0.9%. Conclusions: Our cohort had a lower biopsy rate and a lower incidence of non‐csPCa diagnosis than both Göteborg cohorts, while still maintaining the same incidence of csPCa. This implies that the benefits of reducing non‐csPCa diagnosis, as observed in the Experimental Göteborg cohort, are not necessarily replicable in U.S. "real‐world practice" patients. Also noteworthy, we had a significantly higher percentage of Black men, who showed more aggressive disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]