The present study investigates (a) whether learning disabled readers' working memory deficits that underlie poor reading comprehension are related to a general system, and (b) whether metacognition contributes to comprehension beyond what is predicted by working memory and word knowledge. To this end, performance between learning and disabled (N = 60) and average readers (N = 60) was compared on the reading comprehension, reading rate, and vocabulary subtests of the Nelson Skills Reading Test, Sentence Span test composed of high and low imagery words, and a Metacognitive Questionnaire. As expected, differences between groups in working memory, vocabulary, and reading measures emerged, whereas ability groups were statistically comparable on the Metacognitive Questionnaire. A within-group analysis indicated that the correlation patterns between working memory, vocabulary, metacognition, and reading comprehension were not the same between ability groups. For predicting reading comprehension, the metacognitive questionnaire best predicted learning disabled readers' performance, whereas the working memory span measure that included low-imagery words best predicted average achieving readers' comprehension. Overall, the results suggest that the relationship between learning disabled readers' generalised working memory deficits and poor reading comprehension may be mediated by metacognition.

Three experiments compared learning-disabled and skilled readers' performance on naturalistic memory measures, as well as investigated the relationship between memory performance on everyday and laboratory tasks. In Experiment 1, the laboratory task (sentence span task) and everyday memory measures were correlated moderately for both ability groups. Compared to skilled readers, disabled readers performed poorly on the sentence span task, and were less likely than skilled readers to remember information related to common objects and consequential events. Disabled readers were also less likely to rely on external prompts to help them recall everyday information. Experiment 2 extended the previous findings to older subjects and found that the majority of significant correlations between the laboratory (word span task) and everyday memory tasks were isolated to disabled readers. When compared to chronological-age-matched subjects, disabled readers were inferior in recency performance on the laboratory (word span) and natural serial recall (e.g., recall of U.S. presidents) tasks. Experiment 3 showed that under conditions that facilitate item accessibility, ability group differences in recall were comparable. Taken together, the findings indicate that disabled readers' memory deficits are pervasive across naturalistic and laboratory measures at the younger age, but these deficits diminish for older students. Further, the deficits that occur at the older age are due to problems in accessing knowledge.

The purpose of this article was to identify and characterize prominent journal publications in the learning disabilities field from 1976 to 1985. Based on the frequency of citations in the Social Science Citation Index, 33 prominent articles were identified. Prominent (frequently cited) articles were compared with randomly selected articles on a number of characteristics (e.g., funding source, research design, statistical method). Implications related to the characteristics and quality of articles that influence the learning disability field were discussed.

This study investigated the generalizability of LD children's working memory deficits to naturalistic tasks. Tasks included questionnaire items about recall strategies and the recall of everyday features, early school information, consequential events, and misleading information; the working memory measure was Daneman and Carpenter's (1980) sentence span test. Results indicate that LD children are deficient on working memory and naturalistic measures, but their naturalistic memory deficits do not appear to relate to consequential or suggestible recall tasks. Weak intercorrelations were found between the memory measures, suggesting that working and naturalistic memory reflects independent memory systems. It was concluded that disabled children's deficient memory performance in a natural context is somewhat independent of working memory problems, except when the naturalistic measures (i.e., questionnaire items) assess intentional recall. Deficits in naturalistic memory were less apparent for salient and contextually meaningful information