Over the past decade, educators and researchers concerned about children with reading disabilities have called for widespread adoption of early identification tools and early effective programming. This call may be the result of, in part, what Stanovich calls "Matthew effects in reading." That is, when stakeholders delay identification and support for young children struggling to read, the variance of individual differences in reading will inevitably increase, creating a widening of the gap between strong and struggling readers. In this longitudinal study, reading achievement data from 382 children were collected as they progressed from kindergarten through Grade 3. In kindergarten, children were screened with a battery of phonological awareness measures. Percentile rank scores were collected, and children were identified as having poor, average, or strong phonological awareness. As children moved through Grades 1, 2, and 3, reading-based data were collected in the spring of each year. Results indicated that, in general, as children progressed from kindergarten to Grade 3, those in lower ranks of reading achievement were likely to remain in the lower ranks, and furthermore, at each progressing data collection point struggling readers fell further behind their grade-level reading peers. In other words, as each year passed the variance between strong and struggling readers increased significantly. The authors hypothesized that this finding is consistent with the "Matthew effect"-the rich were getting richer while the poor were getting poorer.

This study compared students with and without learning disabilities (LD) on their recall of academic information and information encountered in the students' everyday lives. The academic recall measures included a sentence listening span test, a rhyming words working memory test, and a visual matrix working memory task. Students' cued recall of all the tasks was also measured. The everyday working memory tasks included a dance episode event recall test; a library procedure recall test; and recall tests of commonly found objects, such as a coin, a telephone, and a McDonald's sign. Compared to students without LD, students with LD performed poorly on both the academic recall tasks and the everyday recall tasks. These results support the notion that some students with LD may have working memory problems that affect their performance on tasks other than reading. The results of the cued recall showed that the availability of cues significantly decreased the ability group differences on many of the academic and everyday tasks. This result replicates prior research findings that students with LD do not use retrieval strategies effectively and that some students with LD may have a production deficiency that affects their retrieval of previously encoded information.

Some researchers suggest that having a learning disability (LD) may act as a risk factor, increasing the likelihood that adolescents experience more negative outcomes in many areas of their lives. However, researchers have yet to examine in one study how having LD with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is related to a comprehensive set of psychosocial variables across a diverse set of domains (e.g., peer, family, school, intrapersonal). The purpose of the present study was to address that limitation by comparing the perceptions of adolescents with LD (N = 230), with comorbid LD/ADHD (N = 92), and without LD or ADHD (N = 322) regarding their academic orientation, temperament, well-being, loneliness, parental relationships, victimization, activities, and friendships. Results are consistent with the hypothesis that LD may indeed act as a risk factor increasing the likelihood of more negative outcomes. The results also indicate that for some psychosocial variables this likelihood may be increased in adolescents with comorbid LD/ADHD. The findings have important implications for stakeholders concerned about supporting adolescents with LD with and without comorbid ADHD.

Risk taking may be regarded as a normative behavior in adolescence. Risk-taking behaviors may include alcohol, smoking, drug use, delinquency, and acts of aggression. Many studies have explored the relationship between adolescents and risk-taking behavior; however, only a few studies have examined this link in adolescents with learning disabilities. The purpose of this study was to compare the risk-taking behavior of adolescents with learning disabilities (N = 307) and without learning disabilities (N = 307) over time. Specifically, this study investigated changes over time in adolescents' substance use, engagement in major and minor delinquency, acts of aggression, and gambling activities. Results indicated that, compared to their nonlearning disabled peers, adolescents with learning disabilities engaged more frequently in some risk-taking behaviors including smoking, marijuana use, acts of delinquency, acts of aggression, and gambling. The results also indicate that for some risk-taking behaviors adolescents with and without learning disabilities differ in their trajectory of engagement. Implications of this study point to the importance of supporting adolescents with learning disabilities when they are faced with difficult decisions around risk taking.

No abstract