SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alpha psychiatry (Online) / 2021 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of the Cognitive Processing Structuresof Students Diagnosed With Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder, and Specific Learning DisorderAccording to Cognitive Assessment System Scores

Tamer ERGİN
Pages
142–146
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Determining the cognitive processing areas of students in different diagnosis groups willguide the creation of the content of cognitive intervention programs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive processing structures of students di agnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and specific learning disorder (SLD).AD and HD in this study are grouped separately.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: A total of 105 students, 35 AD, 35 SLD, and 35 HD, who were applied to the Cognitive As sessment System (CAS) and diagnosed by an expert, were selected as the sample.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Determining the cognitive processing areas of students in different diagnosis groups willguide the creation of the content of cognitive intervention programs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the cognitive processing structures of students di agnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and specific learning disorder (SLD).AD and HD in this study are grouped separately. There are no students diagnosed as having twosubgroups together. Methods: A total of 105 students, 35 AD, 35 SLD, and 35 HD, who were applied to the Cognitive As sessment System (CAS) and diagnosed by an expert, were selected as the sample. The students wereevaluated according to their CAS full scale scores and the results of planning, attention, and simulta neous and successive cognitive processing areas. Results: It was examined whether the cognitive processing areas of the students differed among thediagnosis groups by one-way analysis of variance. Although no significant difference was found in thecognitive processing full scale score among the diagnosis groups, significant differences were foundbetween the cognitive processing areas among the diagnosis groups. The planning scale scores ofthe students in the HD diagnosis group were lower than the other groups, the attention scale scoresof the students in the AD diagnosis group were lower than the HD and SLD diagnostic groups, andsimultaneous and successive cognitive processing scores of the students in the SLD diagnosis groupwere lower than the scores of the students in the HD and AD diagnosis groups. In our study, it wasdetermined that students in different diagnosis groups have different cognitive structures. For thisreason, it is necessary to prepare and apply different cognitive intervention programs suitable foreach diagnostic group. Conclusion: Determining the cognitive processing areas of students in different diagnosis groups willguide the creation of the content of cognitive intervention programs.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERGİN, T. (2022). Comparison of the Cognitive Processing Structuresof Students Diagnosed With Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder, and Specific Learning DisorderAccording to Cognitive Assessment System Scores. Alpha psychiatry (Online), Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3, 142–146. https://ajindex.com/articles/435192

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Naglieri JA, Ashman AA. Making the connection between PASS and intervention. In: Naglieri JA, ed. Essentials of CAS Assessment. New York, NY: Wiley; 1999: 151-181
  2. Naglieri JA, Pickering EB. Helping Children Learn: Intervention Handouts for Use in School and at Home. 2nd ed. Brookes Publishing; 2010
  3. Clark B. Growing up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home and at School. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall; 2002
  4. Luria AR. The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1973
  5. La Rue A, Yang J, Osata S. Neuropsychological assessment. In: Birren J, Sloane R, Cohen G, eds. Handbook of Mental Health and Aging. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 1992
  6. Dikmeer Altınoğlu İ. Using Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV) and Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) in the assessment of cognitive abilities. J Psychol. 2016;(1):17-27
  7. Naglieri JA, Das JP, Goldstein S. CAS 2 Cognitive Assessment System. 2nd ed. Administration and Scoring Manual. Texas: PRO-ED; 2014
  8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. [Crossref] 9. Hale JB, Fiorello CA. School Neuropsychology. A Practitioner’s Handbook. New York: Guilford Press; 2004
  9. Naglieri J, Das JP. Cognitive Assessment System Interpretive Handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 1997
  10. Ergin T. Reliability, Validity and Norm Studies of Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) on Children Who Are Five Years of Age. Dissertation, İstanbul University; 2003
  11. Qin L, Liu H, Zhang H, Fu Y, Li D. Evaluation of the diagnostic implications of Das-Naglieri cognitive assessment system in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):386. [Crossref] 13. Naglieri JA, Otero TM. Essentials of CAS2 Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2017
  12. Barkley RA. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In: Mash EJ, Barkley RA, eds. Child Psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996:63- 112
  13. Naglieri JA, Das JP. Planning-Arousal Simultaneous-Successive (PASS): A model for assessment. J Sch Psychol. 1988;26(1):35-48. [Crossref] 16. Naglieri JA, Braden JP, Gottling SH. Confirmatory factor analysis of the planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) cognitive processing model for a kindergarten sample. J Psychoeduc Assess. 1993;11(3):259- 269. [Crossref] 17. Huang LV, Bardos AN, D’Amato