This study was designed to test whether the criterion based on the IQ-achievement discrepancy is useful in the definition of arithmetic learning disabilities (ALD). A sample of children with ALD, garden-variety (G-V) poormathematics performance (i.e., the poor arithmetic performance of children of below-average intelligence is believed to be nondiscrepant, or in accordance with their lower cognitive capabilities) and normally achieving children were selected using the standard-score discrepancy method (i.e., the differences between IQ and achievement standard scores). All the groups were compared to determine whether there were differences in solving addition and subtraction word problems and in other cognitive abilities related to mathematics such as working memory. There were no significant differences between children with ALD and children with G-V poor mathematics performance in solving arithmetic word problems or on working memory tasks. The performance of both groups with arithmetic disabilities was significantly below that of normally achieving children. This means that the criterion based on the IQ-achievement discrepancy does not seem to be relevant for differentiating between children with ALD and children with G-V poor mathematics performance.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.Abstract. This study was designed to test whether there are differences between children with arithmetic learning disabilities, garden-variety (G-V) poor performance and typically achieving children in strategy choice when solving arithmetic word problems. Using the standard-score discrepancy method (differences between IQ and achievement standard scores), samples were selected of dyscalculic, G-V poor mathematics performance, and typically achieving students. The groups were compared to analyze whether there were differences in their strategy choice when solving arithmetic word problems. No significant differences were found between dyscalculic and G-V children, both groups relying more on backup strategies than the nonimpaired group. Thus, the IQ-achievement discrepancy does not seem to be a relevant criterion for differentiating between individuals with dyscalculia and those with garden-variety poor mathematics performance. JUAN E. JIMENEZ GONZALEZ, Ph.D., is professor, University of La Laguna, Canary Islands, Spain. ANA ISABEL GARCIA ESPINEL, Ph.D., is assistant professor, University of La Laguna, Canary Islands, Spain.Arithmetic, reading and writing make up the basic instrumental learning of the early school years. Understanding the basic ideas about arithmetic is the first step toward acquiring the higher levels of mathematical knowledge required in the labor or academic fields of our increasingly technological society. However, despite the importance of these first steps, results reflect high levels of failure, with mathematics seen as an unattractive subject ill adjusted to children's interests or possibilities (Ginsburg, 1997). This may partly be because mathematics is a complex subject with many cognitive demands (Riviere, 1990) that are not always taken into account in the teaching methodology used, or are not always within a subject's abilities when first taught mathematics.In addition, traditionally, some of the individuals who fail at mathematics show a specific inability for mathematics. For example, many researchers have found that students with arithmetic learning disabilities (ALD) have more difficulty with mathematics than their peers without this difficulty

The effects of two types of phonological training in children with reading disabilities (RD) were examined. One of the programs (SP/LPA) trained children in speech discrimination, letter-sound correspondence, and phonemic awareness. The other program (LPA) trained children only in letter-sound correspondence and phonemic awareness. The effects of these programs were compared with a control group. Thirty-five children with RD were trained in small groups five times a week for 4 weeks. The results indicated that both experimental groups improved in phonemic awareness compared to the control group but that only the SP/LPA group scored higher than the control group in reading.

No abstract