![]() The current paper reviews working memory functioning in subtypes of learning disabilities (Dyslexia, Dysgraphia and Dyscalculia) and provides a detailed account of pattern of deficit seen in working memory in the three subtypes of LD. It is likely that limited working memory functioning of children with learning disabilities hampers their learning skills possibly because of the crucial role played by working memory in learning process. This finding can be implicated in learning disabilities. Recently, a strong link between working memory and learning has been reported. It has been found to be associated with a range of cognitive functions. Working Memory provides a mental work place to support everyday cognitive activities that require both processing and storage. ![]() The need for cross cultural and transnational research is highlighted. ![]() The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need for quantifying or establishing the empirical veracity of the identified attributes before explicating a cohesive or meaningful overall re-statement on definition of learning disabilities. Results: There is plurality of definitions amidst varying emphasis on nature or content of especially seven majorly identified attributes with little agreement on what qualities characterize the condition of learning disability. By using a quantitative-cum-qualitative systematic procedure of identification and listing the attributes, prioritizing and rank ordering them, assigning of appropriate weights before deducing their conceptual meaning, observations on the nomenclature and content characteristics of the definitions were created as basic data units to be undertaken in this analysis. Method: This study attempts a comparative analysis of the similarities or differences between 23 official definitions of learning disability derived from various sources. Still, there is no commonly agreed definition for the condition. Conclusion: The findings of the study show that CBT and CBT+MT are effective in the treatment of AWS, but CBT+MT is more effective than CBT alone.īackground: The phenomenon of learning disability is increasingly occupying the centre stage all over the world. Results: Significant difference in both CBT group and CBT+MT group is observed in the area of communication attitude (U=1.00, p<0.05). Statistical Analysis: Obtained data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test for within the group, before and after intervention comparison and Mann Whitney U Test for between group comparisons. The therapeutic program included 15-20 sessions of one hour each. The sample consisted of ten adults with the diagnosis of stuttering (ICD-10, 1992) who were randomly allotted to Group One (CBT N=5) and Group Two (CBT+MT N=5). Method and Materials: A matched two group pretest and posttest interventional design was employed. Aim: The aim of this preliminary study was to examine and compare the efficacy of CBT and CBT combined with MT in reducing anxiety symptoms, and dysfluent speech and increasing communication attitude, quality of life, self-esteem and speech fluency in AWS. So we planned to study the comparative efficacy of CBT and CBT combined with mindfulness training (MT) in AWS. ![]() Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) has shown effectiveness in reducing anxiety symptoms and dysfluent speech in adults who stutter (AWS). ![]() Introduction: Stuttering is a developmental speech disorder with multiple etiological factors. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |