The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision: Discrimination between Learning-Disabled and Slow-Learner Children

1988 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy Oehler-Stinnett ◽  
Terry A. Stinnett ◽  
Andrea L. Wesley ◽  
Howard N. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Slow Learner ◽  
Neuropsychological Battery

‘Learning Disabled’ or ‘Slow Learner’?

1976 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-35
Author(s):  
Margaret Jo Shepherd
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Slow Learner

Tactile Functions in Learning-Disabled and Normal Children: Reliability and Validity Considerations

1989 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moya Kinnealey
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Integration ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Southern California ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Neuropsychological Battery ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Two Measures ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

This study compared tactile functions of learning-disabled and normal children as measured by the tactile portions of the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests and the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery, Children's revision, to explore the reliability and validity of the two measures and to determine to what extent they are able to discriminate between normal and learning-disabled children. The subjects were sixty 8-year-old children: 30 normal children and 30 children with learning disabilities. The results showed a significant difference between the tactile scores of learning-disabled and normal children. The internal consistency of both tests was .80. A test-retest reliability coefficient of .86 was obtained for both measures. The construct validity for both measures was good. Furthermore, a discriminant analysis correctly classified 90% of the children. Concurrent validity between the two measures was .73. The study also showed that individual tests of the tactile section of the Southern California tests and of the tactile section of the Luria-Nebraska battery (which was artificially divided into subsections for the purposes of this study) are less reliable than the tests given together.

Is the Slow Learner in the Classroom Learning Disabled?

1980 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 32-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira Belmont ◽  
Lillian Belmont
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Slow Learner ◽  
Classroom Learning

Comparison of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision and the WISC—R with Learning Disabled Children

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven I. Pfeiffer ◽  
Jack A. Naglieri ◽  
Daniel H. Tingstrom
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Neuropsychological Battery ◽  
Present Sample ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

This investigation concerned the relationship between the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision and the WISC—R for a sample of 32 children identified as learning disabled. The children's mean age was 9 yr., 11 mo.; they were identified as learning disabled on the basis of ability (WISC—R)/achievement discrepancy test scores. The sample was of low average intellectual ability according to the WISC—R and the Luria-Nebraska T-scores. Intercorrelations between scores on the WISC—R and Luria-Nebraska lists were generally nonsignificant, with the exception of language and arithmetic measures on each test. Also, 84% or 27 of the present sample of 32 were correctly identified as learning disabled using a criterion of three or more Luria-Nebraska subscale scores greater than one SD above the mean.

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision: Comparison of Learning Disabled and Normal Children Matched on Full Scale IQ

1984 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Geary ◽  
Jeffrey W. Gilger
Keyword(s):  
Expressive Language ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Full Scale ◽  
Normal Group ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Neuropsychological Battery ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Language Writing ◽  
Reading Disabled

17 academically normal and 17 reading disabled children were matched on Full Scale IQ and compared on the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision. The academically normal group performed significantly better on the Expressive Language, Writing, Reading, and Rhythm subscales, which suggests that the Luria-Nebraska may be sensitive to deficits not reflected in Full Scale IQ. Results are consistent with previous research and support the validity of the Luria-Nebraska, although simplistic interpretation of the battery's subscales should be avoided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document