Handbook of Learning Disabilities

520 METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 31.3. Composite fMRI activation maps in readers who are nonimpaired and those who are
dyslexic engaged in phonological processing during the nonword rhyme task. Readers who are nonim-
paired activate a large region involving the angular gyrus (1), supramarginal gyrus, and posterior por-
tions of the superior temporal gyrus. In contrast, readers who are dyslexic demonstrate a relative un-
deractivation in this posterior region and an increased activation in the IFG (a) and middle frontal gyrus
(b) bilaterally. Data from S. E. Shaywitz et al. (1998). Copyright 2002 by Sally Shaywitz.

organization of the brain for language and tions of the same basic sex by hemisphere
indicate that these differences exist primari- pattern. In sum, the evidence from several
ly at the level of phonological processing. imaging experiments involving reading
At one level, they support and extend a seems clear—the modal pattern indicates
long-held hypothesis that suggests that lan- relatively greater right-hemisphere involve-
guage functions are more likely to be high- ment for females than for males.
ly lateralized in males but represented in
both cerebral hemispheres in females FMRI IN ADULT DYSLEXIC READERS
(Halpern, 2000; Witelson & Kigar, 1992).
It should be noted that while the basic sex Our aim was to use the set of hierarchically
difference in hemispheric activation in IFG structured tasks described previously that
appears statistically robust across investiga- control the kind of language-relevant cod-
tions using large numbers of subjects, it is ing required, including especially the de-
clear that there is much overlap between mand on phonological analysis, and then to
the distributions as well. For example, this compare the performance and brain activa-
effect has been replicated using different tion patterns (as measured by fMRI) of
language processing tasks (Jaeger et al., readers who are dyslexic (DYS) and readers
1998; Kansaku, Yamaura, & Kitazawa, who are nonimpaired (NI). We studied 61
2000), yet other imaging experiments have right-handed subjects, 29 DYS readers (14
not observed robust sex differences in later- men, 15 women, ages 16–54 years), and 32
alization (Price, Moore, & Frackowiak, NI readers (16 men, 16 women, ages 18–63
1996). As with analogous sex differences in years). Both groups were in the average
lateralization using visual-hemifield or bin- range for IQ; DYS readers had a Full Scale
aural presentation conditions in language IQ (mean ± SEM) of 91 ± 2.3 and NI read-
processing tasks, given the large overlap in ers had an IQ of 115 ± 2.2. Other than re-
distribution the basic effect may not be ex- quiring that all subjects have an IQ in the
pected to attain significance in each and average range (80 or above), we elected not
every sample and for all language process- to match subjects on IQ so as not to bias
ing manipulations. Since our initial finding our sample selection in favor of less im-
of sex differences in functional activation paired readers as in dyslexia IQ is known to
within IFG we have obtained three replica- be influenced by reading ability. Reading

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 521

performance in the DYS subjects was signif- handed children, 70 DYS readers (21 girls,
icantly impaired: the mean standard score 49 boys, ages 7–18 years, mean age 13.3
on a measure of nonword reading (Wood- years) and 74 NI readers (31 girls, 43 boys,
cock & Johnson, 1989) was 81 ± 1.9 (mean ages 7–17 years, mean age 10.9 years). All
± SEM) in DYS readers compared to 114 ± children had intelligence in the average
1.5 in NI readers, with no overlap between range. Criteria for DYS were met if the av-
groups. Similarly, error patterns on the erage of the two decoding subtests (Word
fMRI tasks revealed that DYS differed from Identification and Word Attack) from
NI most strikingly on the NWR task. Non- the Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational
word reading is perhaps the clearest indica- Test Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989)
tion of decoding ability because familiarity were below a standard score of 90 (below
with the letter pattern cannot influence the the 25th percentile) or 1.5 standard errors
individual’s response. of prediction lower than the expected read-
ing achievement score using the third edi-
We focused on those brain regions that tion of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
previous research had implicated in reading Children (Wechsler, 1991) Full Scale IQ
and language (Demonet, Price, Wise, & score. Both of these definitions validly iden-
Frackowiak, 1994; Henderson, 1986; Pe- tify children as poor readers, with little evi-
tersen, Fox, Snyder, & Raichle, 1990; Pugh dence for differences among subgroups of
et al., 1996) and examined these for evi- children formed with these definitions
dence of differences between the two read- (Fletcher et al., 1994; B. A. Shaywitz,
ing groups in patterns of activation across Fletcher, Holahan, & Shaywitz, 1992). To
the series of tasks. In this study we found ensure good readers, and no overlap be-
significant differences in brain activation tween groups, criteria for NI were reading
patterns between DYS and NI readers, dif- scores above the 39th percentile.
ferences that emerged during tasks that
made progressive demands on phonological Reading performance in the DYS children
analysis. Thus, during NWR in DYS read- was significantly impaired: the mean stan-
ers, we found a disruption in several critical dard score on a measure of pseudo-word
components of a posterior system involving reading (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989)
posterior superior temporal gyrus (Wer- (mean + SD) was 85.1 ± 11.0 in DYS com-
nicke’s area), Brodmann’s area (BA) 39 (an- pared to 120 ± 17.1 in NI (p <.001). During
gular gyrus), and BA 17 (striate cortex) and fMRI, significant differences between NI
a concomitant increase in activation in the and DYS children were observed while the
IFG anteriorly. children were engaged in the tasks requiring
phonological analysis, particularly NWR
Hemispheric differences between NI and and semantic judgment (see earlier, CAT),
DYS readers have long been suspected (Gal- and not during a task that relies primarily
aburda et al., 1985; Geschwind, 1985; on visual perception and not phonology.
Rumsey et al., 1992; Salmelin et al., 1996) Results were quite similar to those observed
and these were found in two regions: the an- in adults, with greater activation in NI read-
gular gyrus and BA 37. Thus, there is some ers in anterior and posterior reading systems
similarity between the fMRI data and the (see Figure 31.4).
anatomic findings reported for the planum
temporale in the superior temporal gyrus Of particular interest was the correlation
(Galaburda et al., 1985). Galaburda and between individual differences in reading
colleagues (1985) noted in dyslexic brains a performance on standard measures of read-
reversal of the usual left-hemisphere asym- ing skill out of magnet and individual differ-
metry and we found an apparent predomi- ences in brain activation patterns in left-
nance of right-hemisphere activity in DYS hemisphere posterior regions. We found
readers in the angular gyrus and the middle that performance on the Woodcock–John-
and inferior temporal gyri. son (W-J) Word Attack test of pseudo-word
reading (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) was
FMRI IN CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA positively correlated with activation in pos-
terior regions, particularly in the left occipi-
In a recently completed study (B. A. Shay- totemporal area. The more accurate the per-
witz et al., 2002) we studied 144 right- formance in reading, the greater the

522 METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 31.4. Composite contrast maps comparing directly the brain activation of NI and DYS chil-
dren. Highlighted areas indicate brain regions that were more active in NI compared to DYS children
during the nonword rhyme task. These regions involve left-hemisphere sites (the right side of the image)
in the IFG, parietotemporal, and occipitotemporal regions. Data from B. A. Shaywitz et al. (2002).
Copyright 2002 by Sally Shaywitz.

magnitude of the fMRI signal in these left- right IFG. We suggest that older DYS read-
hemisphere regions during in-magnet read- ers engage neural systems in frontal regions
ing. These findings across the full cohort of to compensate for the disruption in posteri-
children reveals a continuum from very or regions.
poor to skilled readers (S. E. Shaywitz et al.,
1992) (see Figure 31.5). Strengths and Limitations of fMRI

In anterior regions, NI children demon- fMRI has supplanted all other kinds of
strated greater activation than did DYS chil- functional brain imaging for the examina-
dren; this finding is consonant with two tion of cognitive systems in brain. As noted
other reports in children (Corina et al., earlier, fMRI is noninvasive, does not re-
2001; Georgiewa et al., 1999) as well as re- quire any intravenous injections, and does
ports in adults (Gross-Glenn et al., 1991; not need administration of a radioactive
Paulesu et al., 1996). At the same time, this tracer, and thus is particularly well-suited
finding contrasts with what we (S. E. Shay- for studies of children. For the same rea-
witz et al., 1998) and others (Brunswick et sons, it is ideally suited for longitudinal
al., 1999) have reported in adults, where studies requiring repeated fMRI in the same
DYS readers showed greater activation in children, to examine, for example, the de-
the IFG. Consideration of the correlation velopment of neural systems for reading.
between age and brain activation provided The user must also be aware of the limita-
an explanation that could resolve these dif- tions of the technology. One such limitation
ferences. Specifically, we found that during is that the subjects’ complete cooperation is
the most difficult and specific phonological required. This is obvious—the investigator
task (nonword rhyming) older DYS readers requires the subject to perform a particular
(but not NI readers) engaged the left and

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 523

FIGURE 31.5. Correlation map between reading skill as measured by the Word Attack reading test
performed out of magnet and nonword rhyme performed during fMRI for the entire group of 144 chil-
dren. Highlighted areas show a positive correlation of in-magnet tasks with the out-of-magnet reading
test (threshold, p < .01). Strong correlation was found in the occipitotemporal region in the left hemi-
sphere. Data from B. A. Shaywitz et al. (2002). Copyright 2002 by Sally Shaywitz.

task, such as determining whether two non- ia is that scientists and clinicians now have
words rhyme. Given this requirement, stud- unassailable evidence that children with
ies using fMRI are usually limited to those learning disabilities (LD) have a real dis-
children, ages 6 and older, who are able to ability, as real as a fractured arm or as
cooperate and who will be able to perform a pneumonia. No longer do parents and the
task while in the imager. FMRI works well children themselves have to hear critics ac-
for studying a process such as reading that cuse them of faking a disorder to get the as-
is not taught until age 6, but investigators sumed “perks” that go along with the diag-
studying the emergence of language would nosis. Specifically, functional imaging
find it difficult to gain the cooperation of studies have now converged with behav-
children in late infancy and preschool, the ioral studies in indicating that there are im-
time frame when language is developing. portant differences, here neurologically
Another limitation of fMRI is its poor time based, between LD and nondisabled indi-
resolution. The procedure will allow track- viduals. Demonstration of these differences
ing events occurring over a period of sec- in children who are at the cusp of reading
onds, but it is not possible to observe events as well as in adults confirm the persistent
occurring over milliseconds. Magnetoen- nature of dyslexia. Studies have previously
cephalograpy does allow resolution of demonstrated that bright readers with
events occurring over milliseconds, and the dyslexia become more accurate as they ma-
combination of fMRI and MEG would ob- ture, but they do not attain fluency or auto-
viate the limitations of each technology. maticity in reading. Now, functional imag-
Such experiments are in process in a num- ing provides an explanation. Converging
ber of laboratories. evidence from many laboratories implicate
the left occipitotemporal region as a site for
fMRI’s Place in Complementing Traditional skilled, automatic reading. Failure to acti-
Comparisons between LD and vate this region by readers with dyslexia ex-
Nondisabled Students. plains their lack of automaticity; observa-
tion of activation of right-hemisphere
Perhaps the most important consequence of frontal and posterior regions—ancillary
the emerging biology of reading and dyslex- systems for word reading—provides an ex-

524 METHODOLOGY

planation for accurate but not automatic First the paradigms. All the tasks that we
reading. These secondary systems can de- have described are performed and analyzed
code the word but slowly and not with the using a block design, that is, a string (or
degree of automaticity characteristic of left- block) of stimuli are shown to the subject,
hemisphere linguistically structured brain then a block of control tasks are shown.
regions. These findings have important clin- Data are analyzed by comparing the activa-
ical implications: they confirm the biologi- tions during the block of a particular task
cal validity of reading disability; they ex- with the block of control task. The differ-
plain the lack of automaticity, even in those ence in activation is considered to reflect the
readers who develop accuracy; and they cognitive processing of the task. In an event-
provide neurobiological evidence of the related design, the subject sees a back-
need for extra time on tests for adults who ground task and then, every so often, an
are dyslexic. In addition, the demonstration oddball stimulus is presented. The data are
of the persistent nature of the functional analyzed by averaging the response to all
disruption in left-hemisphere neural systems the oddball stimuli and then subtracting the
for reading indicates both that the disorder activity of the background task. There are
is lifelong and that there is no need for some situations in which such a paradigm is
those who were identified as dyslexic as quite useful. The problem with the event-
children to be retested as adults to have the related design is that longer imaging is nec-
diagnosis confirmed. essary because the stimulus of interest (the
oddball) can be shown just a few times
Context, Error, and Complexity in the every so often; otherwise, if it is shown fre-
Application of fMRI quently, it is no longer perceived by the sub-
ject as an oddball. Thus, in order to collect
fMRI is exquisitely context dependent in enough data, the subject is required to stay
its application. For example, the neural sys- in the imager for a longer period. Newer
tems activated during fMRI reflect the neur- methods may allow for shorter imaging
al systems engaged by the task used. Thus, times (see Maccotta, Zacks, & Buckner,
when we ask children to rhyme nonwords, a 2001).
certain general pattern of brain activation is
apparent. On the other hand, responding to As for the hardware, suffice it to say that
whether two real words are in the same cat- the makers of the high field MRI units are
egory activates some of the same neural sys- now able to manufacture magnets with a
tems as for rhyming nonwords but some strength two to four times the strength of
different sites as well. In our studies we have current clinical imaging devices. In theory
modified tasks so that younger children will this should lead to better signal-to-noise ra-
be able to perform the task. For example, tio, resulting in a more sensitive measure of
rather than show two nonwords on a changes in brain blood flow. Data available
screen, our stimuli for young readers is a from the few high field imagers currently in
picture of an object (e.g., cat) and then the use indicate extraordinary resolution in
word “bat.” The child responds yes if the brain morphology. Whether there are simi-
word rhymes with the picture. Because both lar improvements in resolution of fMRI us-
rhyming nonwords and rhyming to pictures ing these high field magnets remains a sub-
require phonological analysis, the systems ject for further investigation.
activated are similar.
Summary of Consistent Findings
Variations within fMRI Methodology
Converging evidence using functional brain
The variations within fMRI are most readily imaging in adults and children with dyslexia
conceptualized as variations within soft- shows a failure of left-hemisphere posterior
ware (i.e., paradigms, block design vs. brain systems to function properly during
event-related design, or methods of analyses reading (Brunswick et al., 1999; Helenius et
[e.g., connectivity, and its measures]) and al., 1999; Horwitz et al., 1998; Paulesu et
variations within hardware, (e.g., strength al., 2001; Rumsey et al., 1992, 1997;
of magnetic field of imager [1.5, 3, 4, 7 T]). Salmelin et al., 1996; B. A. Shaywitz et al.,

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 525

2002; S. E. Shaywitz et al., 1998; Simos et the child with dyslexia develop an aware-
al., 2000; Temple et al., 2001). These find- ness of the sound structure of the word by
ings converge with the anatomic studies, subvocalizing, (ie., forming the word with
beginning with Dejerine (1891) and, more his lips, tongue, and vocal apparatus) and
recently, a range of neurobiological investi- thus allow the child to read, albeit more
gations using postmortem brain specimens slowly and less efficiently than if the fast oc-
(Galaburda et al., 1985), brain morphome- cipitotemporal word identification system
try (Filipek, 1996), and diffusion tensor were functioning. The right-hemisphere
MRI imaging (Klingberg et al., 2000) that sites may represent the engagement of brain
demonstrate differences in the temporo– regions that allow the poor reader to use
parieto–occipital brain regions between other perceptual processes to compensate
readers who are dyslexic and those who are for his or her poor phonological skills. A
nonimpaired. number of studies of young adults with
childhood histories of dyslexia indicate that
Logan (1988, 1997) proposed two sys- although they may develop some accuracy
tems critical in the development of skilled, in reading words, they remain slow, nonau-
automatic processing, one involving word tomatic readers (Bruck, 1992; Felton et al.,
analysis, operating on individual units of 1990) (see Figure 31.6).
words such as phonemes, requiring atten-
tional resources and processing relatively Future Directions
slowly, and the second system operating on
the whole word (word form), an obligatory Our research group has begun a new series
system that does not require attention and of studies involving fMRI in children and
processes rapidly. Converging evidence young adults with dyslexia. While the
from a number of lines of investigation indi- cross-sectional study described earlier pro-
cates that Logan’s word analysis system is vided some indication of the development
localized within the parietotemporal region of skilled reading, a new longitudinal study
while the automatic, rapidly responding sys- currently in progress will allow the exami-
tem is localized within the occipitotemporal nation of the neural systems for reading,
area, functioning as a visual word form area over time, in the same group of children,
(Cohen et al., 2000, 2002; Dehaene et al., both DYS and NI readers. By carefully as-
2001; Moore & Price, 1999). The visual sessing the development of skilled reading
word form area appears to respond prefer- in these children and periodically assessing
entially to rapidly presented stimuli (Price et the neural systems for reading, we hope to
al., 1996) and is engaged even when the learn how the neural systems for reading
word has not been consciously perceived develop, and how the development of these
(Dehaene et al., 2001). It is this occipi- systems differ in DYS readers. At the same
totemporal system that appears to predomi- time, in collaboration with Michael Posner
nate when a reader has become skilled and and Bruce McCandliss, we are examining
has bound together as a unit the ortho- how developing attentional systems relate
graphic, phonological, and semantic fea- to the development of skilled reading. Com-
tures of the word. pared to reading, relatively little is known
about mathematics disability, and in a se-
Recognition of these systems allows us to ries of experiments in collaboration with
suggest an explanation for the brain activa- Stanislas Dehaene, we are examining how
tion patterns observed in DYS children. We neural systems for mathematics develop
suppose that rather than the smoothly func- and map onto the development of chil-
tioning and integrated reading systems ob- drens’ ability to calculate. The influence of
served in NI children, disruption of the a reading intervention designed to improve
posterior reading systems results in DYS reading fluency on the development of
children attempting to compensate by shift- neural systems for skilled reading will be
ing to other, ancillary systems, for example, examined in a project in collaboration with
anterior sites such as the IFG and right- Robin Morris. Morris has developed an in-
hemisphere sites. The anterior sites, critical tervention that appears to be one of the
in articulation (Brunswick et al., 1999; Fiez
& Petersen, 1998; Frackowiak, Friston,
Frith, Dolan, & Mazziotta, 1997), may help

526 METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 31.6. Neural systems for reading. Converging evidence indicates three important systems in
reading, all primarily in the left hemisphere. These include an anterior system and two posterior sys-
tems: (1) anterior system in the left inferior frontal region; (2) parietotemporal system involving angular
gyrus, supramarginal gyrus, and posterior portions of the superior temporal gyrus; (3) occipitotemporal
system involving portions of the middle and inferior temporal gyrus and middle and inferior occipital
gyrus. For details, see text. Copyright 2002 by Sally Shaywitz.

first effective interventions for improving Conclusions
reading fluency and by imaging children be-
fore and after that intervention we hope to Within the last two decades overwhelming
demonstrate the influence of specific inter- evidence from many laboratories has con-
ventions on the neural circuitry in subtypes verged to indicate the cognitive basis for
of poor readers. In collaboration with dyslexia: dyslexia represents a disorder
Robert Fulbright and Douglas Rothman we within the language system and more specif-
are using a new technology, magnetic reso- ically within a particular subcomponent of
nance spectroscopy, to examine at the cellu- that system, phonological processing. Re-
lar level the basis of the disruptions noted cent advances in imaging technology and
in fMRI studies. And we continue to study the development of tasks that sharply iso-
a unique cohort of young adults, subjects late the subcomponent processes of reading
who are participants in the Connecticut now allow the localization of phonological
Longitudinal Study, which provides a virtu- processing in brain and, as a result, provide,
ally intact sample of 400 subjects who have for the first time, the potential for elucidat-
been followed prospectively and continu- ing a biological signature for reading and
ously from kindergarten entry to adult- reading disability. Converging evidence
hood. In particular, we will examine the in- from a number of laboratories using func-
fluence of a full range of predictor variables tional brain imaging indicates a disruption
(risk/protective) on an equally full range of of left-hemisphere posterior brain systems
potential outcomes. Outcome is examined in DYS readers while performing reading
from multiple perspectives, including edu- tasks with an additional suggestion for an
cational, vocational, behavioral, and family associated increased reliance on ancillary
and social and life satisfaction on the one systems, for example, in the frontal lobe
hand and from the perspective of reading and right-hemisphere posterior circuits. The
achievement and reading disability on the discovery of neural systems serving reading
other. Here too, we will examine the neural has significant implications. At the most
mechanisms in a range of skilled and less fundamental level, it is now possible to in-
skilled readers, wedding the power of epi- vestigate specific hypotheses regarding the
demiology, longitudinal surveillance, and neural substrate of dyslexia and to verify,
state-of-the-art neurobiology and technolo- reject, or modify suggested cognitive mod-
gy. els. From a more clinical perspective, the

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 527

identification of neural systems for reading Bruck, M. (1990). Word-recognition skills of adults
offers the promise for more precise identifi- with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Develop-
cation and diagnosis of dyslexia in children, mental Psychology, 26(3), 439–454.
adolescents, and adults. Demonstration of
the neural disruption in children and adults Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phono-
and the engagement of ancillary systems in- logical awareness deficits. Developmental Psy-
dicate the persistent nature of dyslexic chology, 28(5), 874–886.
throughout the lifespan and explain the ob-
servation that as dyslexics mature they be- Bruck, M. (1998). Outcomes of adults with child-
come more accurate but continue to read hood histories of dyslexia. In C. Hulme & R. M.
slowly. For clinical purposes these findings Joshi (Eds.), Cognitive and linguistic bases of
strongly suggest that those with childhood reading, writing, and spelling (pp. 179–200) Ma-
diagnoses of dyslexic do not require testing haw, NJ: Erlbaum.
as adults to confirm the diagnosis and that
they do require the accommodation of extra Brunswick, N., McCrory, E., Price, C. J., Frith, C.
time on their examinations. D., & Frith, U. (1999). Explicit and implicit pro-
cessing of words and pseudowords by adult de-
Acknowledgments velopmental dyslexics: A search for Wernicke’s
Wortschatz. Brain, 122, 1901–1917.
The work described in this review was supported by
grants from the National Institute of Child Health Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehericy, S.,
and Human Development (PO1 HD 21888 and P50 Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Henaff, M., & Michel, F.
HD25802). Portions of this chapter appeared in (2000). The visual word form area: Spatial and
and are similar to other reviews by us (S. Shaywitz, temporal characterization of an initial stage of
1998; S. Shaywitz & B. Shaywitz, 1999; B. Shay- reading in normal subjects and posterior split-
witz et al., 2000; S. Shaywitz et al., in press). We brain patients. Brain, 123, 291–307.
thank Carmel Lepore for her help in preparing the
manuscript. Cohen, L., Lehéricy, S., Chochon, F., Lemer, C., Ri-
vaud, S., & Dehaene, S. (2000). Language-specif-
References ic tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties
of the Visual Word Form Area. Brain,
Anderson, A., & Gore, J. (1997). The physical basis 125,1054–1069.
of neuroimaging techniques. In M. Lewis & B.
Peterson (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychiatric Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M.
clinics of North America (Vol. 6, pp. 213–264). (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and
Philadelphia: Saunders. parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psy-
chological Review, 100, 589–608.
Bakker, D. (1992). Neuropsychological classifica-
tion and treatment of dyslexia. Journal of Learn- Coltheart, M., Masterson, J., Byng, S., Prior, M., &
ing Disabilities, 25(2), 1–2–109. Riddoch, J. (1983). Surface dyslexia. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A,
Bakker, D., Licht, R., & van Strien, J. (1991). 469–495.
Biopsychological validation of the L- and P-type
dyslexia. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychologi- Coltheart, M., Rastle, K. Perry, C. Langdon, R.,
cal validation of learning disability subtypes (pp. & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cas-
124–139). New York: Guilford Press. caded model of visual word recognition and
reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108,
Ben-Dror, I., Pollatsek, A., & Scarpati, A. (1991). 204–256.
Word identification in isolation and in context by
college dyslexic students. Brain and Language, Corina, D., Richards, T., Serafini, S., Richards, A.,
40, 471–490. Steury, K., Abbott, R., Echelard, D., Maravilla,
K., & Berninger, V. (2001). fMRI auditory lan-
Brady, S. A., & Shankweiler, D. P. (Eds.). (1991). guage differences between dyslexic and able read-
Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to ing children. NeuroReport, 12, 1195–1201.
Isabelle Y. Liberman. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1983). The
Bruck, M. (1985). The adult functioning of children anatomic basis of pure alexia. Neurology, 33,
with specific learning disabilities: A follow-up 1573–1583.
study. In I. Siegel (Ed.), Advances in applied de-
velopmental psychology (pp. 91–129). Norwood, Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Cohen, L., Le Bihan, D.,
NJ: Ablex. Mangin, J., Poline, J., & Riviere, D. (2001).
Cerebral mechanisms of word masking and un-
conscious repetition priming. Nature Neuro-
science, 4, 752–758.

Dejerine, J. (1891). Sur un cas de cécité verbale avec
agraphie, suivi d’autopsie. C. R. Société du Biolo-
gie, 43, 197–201.

Dejerine, J. (1892). Contribution a l’etude anato-
mo-pathologique et clinique des differentes vari-
etes de cecite verbale. Memoires de la Societe de
Biologie, 4, 61–90.

Demb, J., Boynton, G., & Heeger, D. (1998). Func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging of early visual
pathways in dyslexia. Journal of Neuroscience,
18, 6939–6951.

528 METHODOLOGY

Demonet, J. F., Price, C., Wise, R., & Frackowiak, mental dyslexia: Four consecutive patients with
R. S. J. (1994). A PET study of cognitive strate- cortical anomalies. Annals of Neurology, 18(2),
gies in normal subjects during language tasks: In- 222–233.
fluence of phonetic ambiguity and sequence pro- Georgiewa, P., Rzanny, R., Hopf, J., Knab, R.,
cessing on phoneme monitoring. Brain, 117, Glauche, V., Kaiser, W., & Blanz, B. (1999).
671–682. fMRI during word processing in dyslexic and
normal reading children. NeuroReport, 10,
Eden, G. F., VanMeter, J. W., Rumsey, J. M., 3459–3465.
Maisog, J. M., Woods, R. P., & Zeffiro, T. A. Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnection syndromes in
(1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in animals and man. Brain, 88, 237–294.
dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging. Geschwind, N. (1985). Biological foundations of
Nature, 382, 66–69. reading. In F. H. Duffy & N. Geschwind (Eds.),
Dyslexia: A neuroscientific approach to clinical
Felton, R. H., Naylor, C. E., & Wood, F. B. (1990). evaluation (pp. 195–211). Boston: Little, Brown.
Neuropsychological profile of adult dyslexics. Gilger, J. W., Borecki, I. B., Smith, S. D., DeFries, J.
Brain and Language, 39, 485–497. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1996). The etiology of
extreme scores for complex phenotypes: An illus-
Fiez, J. A., & Petersen, S. E. (1998). Neuroimaging tration using reading performance. In C. H.
studies of word reading. Proceedings of the Chase, G. D. Rosen, & G. F. Sherman (Eds.), De-
Natioal Academy of Science USA, 95(3), 914– velopmental dyslexia: Neural, cognitive, and ge-
921. netic mechanisms (pp. 63–85). Baltimore: York
Press.
Filipek, P. (1996). Structural variations in measures Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding,
in the developmental disorders. In R. Thatcher, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
G. Lyon, J. Rumsey, & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), De- Special Education, 7, 6–10.
velopmental neuroimaging: Mapping the devel- Gross-Glenn, K., Duara, R., Barker, W. W.,
opment of brain and behavior (pp. 169–186). Loewenstein, D., Chang, J.-Y., Yoshii, F., Apicel-
San Diego,CA: Academic Press. la, A. M., Pascal, S., Boothe, T., Sevush, S., Jal-
lad, B. J., Novoa, L., & Lubs, H. A. (1991).
Finucci, J. M., & Childs, B. (1981). Are there really Positron emission tomographic studies during se-
more dyslexic boys than girls? In A. Ansara, N. rial word-reading by normal and dyslexic adults.
Geschwind, M. Albert, & N. Gartrell (Eds.), Sex Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-
differences in dyslexia (pp. 1–9). Towson, MD: chology, 13(4), 531–544.
Orton Dyslexia Society. Hagman, J. O., Wood, F., Buchsbaum, M. S., Tallal,
P., Flowers, L., & Katz, W. (1992). Cerebral
Fisher, S. E., & DeFries, J. C. (2002). Developmen- brain metabolism in adult dyslexic subjects as-
tal dyslexia: Genetic dissection of a complex cog- sessed with positron emission tomography during
nitive trait. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, performance of an auditory task. Archives of
3(10), 767–780. Neurology, 49, 734–739.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., Fran- Helenius, P., Tarkiainen, A., Cornelissen, P.,
cis, D. J., Fowler, A. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. Hansen, P. C., & Salmelin, R. (1999). Dissocia-
(1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: tion of normal feature analysis and deficient pro-
Comparisons of discrepancy and low achieve- cessing of letter-strings in dyslexic adults. Cere-
ment definitions. Journal of Educational Psychol- bral Cortex, 4, 476–483.
ogy, 86(1), 6–23. Henderson, V. W. (1986). Anatomy of posterior
pathways in reading: A reassessment. Brain and
Flynn, J., & Rahbar, M. (1994). Prevalence of read- Language, 29, 119–133.
ing failure in boys compared with girls. Psycholo- Horwitz, B., Rumsey, J. M., & Donohue, B. C.
gy in the Schools, 31, 66–71. (1998). Functional connectivity of the angular
gyrus in normal reading and dyslexia. Proceed-
Frackowiak, R., Friston, K., Frith, C., Dolan, R., & ings of the National Academy of Science USA,
Mazziotta. (1997). Human brain function. New 95, 8939–8944.
York: Academic Press. Jaeger, J., Lockwood, A., Vanvalin, R., Kemmer-
er, D., Murphy, B., & Wack, D. (1998). Sex dif-
Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., ferences in brain regions activated by grammati-
Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Devel- cal and reading tasks. Neuroreport, 9,
opmental lag versus deficit models of reading dis- 2803–2807.
ability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves Kansaku, K., Yamaura, A., & Kitazawa, S. (2000).
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the
88(1), 3–17. posterior language areas. Cerebral Cortex, 10,
866–872.
Friedman, R. F., Ween, J. E., & Albert, M. L. Klingberg, T., Hedehus, M., Temple, E., Salz, T.,
(1993). Alexia. In K. M. Heilman & E. Valen-
stein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (3rd ed.,
pp. 37–62). New York: Oxford University
Press.

Friston, K. J., Frith, C. D., Liddle, P. F., & Frack-
owiak, R. S. J. (1993). Functional connectivity:
The principal-component analysis of large (PET)
data sets. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and
Metabolism, 13, 5–14.

Galaburda, A. M., Sherman, G. F., Rosen, G. D.,
Aboitiz, F., & Geschwind, N. (1985). Develop-

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 529

Gabrieli, J., Moseley, M., & Poldrack, R. (2000). duration on brain activity during reading. Neu-
Microstructure of temporo-parietal white matter roimage, 3(1), 40–52.
as a basis for reading ability: Evidence from dif- Pugh, K. R., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Con-
fusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neu- stable, T. R., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. K., Bro-
ron, 25, 493–500. nen, R. A., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Fletcher,
Lefly, D. L., & Pennington, B. F. (1991). Spelling er- J. M., & Gore, J. C. (1996). Cerebral organiza-
rors and reading fluency in compensated adult tion of component processes in reading. Brain,
dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162. 119, 1221–1238.
Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phonol- Report of the National Reading Panel. (2000).
ogy and beginning to read: A tutorial. In L. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based as-
Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: sessment of the scientific research literature on
Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: reading and its implications for reading instruc-
Erlbaum. tion. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child
Logan, G. (1988). Toward an instance theory of au- Health and Human Development, National Insti-
tomatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492– tutes of Health.
527. Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Learning to
Logan, G. (1997). Automaticity and reading: per- read: Basic research and its implications. Hills-
spectives from the instance theory of automatiza- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcom- Rumsey, J. M., Andreason, P., Zametkin, A. J.,
ing Learning Disabilities, 13, 123–146. Aquino, T., King, C., Hamburber, S. D., Pikus,
Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994). Visual lexical A., Rapoport, J. L., & Cohen, R. M. (1992). Fail-
access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from ure to activate the left temporoparietal cortex in
phonological priming by homophones and dyslexia. Archives of Neurology, 49, 527–534.
pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Rumsey, J. M., Nace, K., Donohue, B., Wise, D.,
Psychology: General, 123(4), 331–353. Maisog, J. M., & Andreason, P. (1997). A
Maccotta, L., Zacks, J., & Buckner, R. (2001). positron emission tomographic study of impaired
Rapid self-paced event-related functional MRI: word recognition and phonological processing in
feasibility and implications of stimulus-versus re- dyslexic men. Archives of Neurology, 54,
sponse-locked timing. NeuroImage, 14, 1105– 562–573.
1121. Salmelin, R., Service, E., Kiesila, P., Uutela, K., &
Moore, C., & Price, C. (1999). Three distinct ven- Salonen, O. (1996). Impaired visual word pro-
tral occiptotemporal regions for reading and ob- cessing in dyslexia revealed with magnetoen-
ject naming. NeuroImage, 10, 181–192. cephalography. Annals of Neurology, 40,
Morris, R. D., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., 157–162.
Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Shankweiler, D. P., Scarborough, H. S. (1984). Continuity between
Katz, L., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). childhood dyslexia and adult reading. British
Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around Journal of Psychology, 75, 329–348.
a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psy- Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language
chology, 90, 347–373. deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development,
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., 61, 1728–1743.
Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S., Cossu, Sergent, J. (1994). Brain-imaging studies of cogni-
G., Habib, M., Frith, C., & Frith, U. (2001). tive function. Trends in Neurosciences, 17,
Dyslexia-cultural diversity and biological unity. 221–227.
Science, 291, 2165–2167. Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A. E.,
Paulesu, E., Frith, U., Snowling, M., Gallagher, A., Liberman, A. M., Brady, S. A., Thornton, R.,
Morton, J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L., Fletcher, J. M., Stue-
(1996). Is developmental dyslexia a disconnec- bing, K. K., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A.
tion syndrome? Evidence from PET scanning. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled
Brain, 119, 143–157. children: Comparison of language skills in
Pennington, B. F., & Gilger, J. W. (1996). How is phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychologi-
dyslexia transmitted? In C. H. Chase, G. D. cal Science, 6(3), 149–156.
Rosen, & G. F. Sherman (Eds.), Developmental Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Mark, L. S.,
dyslexia. Neural, cognitive, and genetic mecha- Fowler, C. A., & Fischer, F. W. (1979). The
nisms (pp. 41–61). Baltimore: York Press. speech code and learning to read. Journal of Ex-
Petersen, S. E., & Fiez, J. A. (1993). The processing perimental Psychology: Human Learning and
of single words studied with positron emission Memory, 5(6), 531–545.
tomography. Annual Review of Neuroscience, Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and
16, 509–530. self–teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisi-
Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., Snyder, A. Z., & Raichle, tion. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
M. E. (1990). Activation of extrastriate and Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive
frontal cortical areas by visual words and word- processes in early reading development: Accom-
like stimuli. Science, 249, 1041–1044. modating individual differences into a model of
Price, C., Moore, C., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions
(1996). The effect of varying stimulus rate and from Educational Psychology, 1(1), 1–57.

530 METHODOLOGY

Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., & cadie, C., Gatenby, C., & Gore, J. C. (1998).
Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to Functional disruption in the organization of the
low achievement definitions of reading disability: brain for reading in dyslexia. Proceedings of the
Results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. National Academy of Science USA, 95, 2636–
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 639– 2641.
648. Shaywitz, S. E. Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K., Fulbright,
R., Mencl, W., Constable, R., Skudlarski, P.,
Shaywitz, B. A., Holford, T. R., Holahan, J. M., Fletcher, J., Lyon, G., & Gore, J. (in press). The
Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D., J, & neuropsychology of dyslexia. In S. Segalowitz &
Shaywitz, S. E. (1995). A Matthew effect for IQ I. Rapin (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsycholology
but not for reading: Results from a longitudinal (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 894– Simos, P., Breier, J., Fletcher, J., Bergman, E., & Pa-
906. panicolaou, A. (2000). Cerebral mechanisms in-
volved in word reading in dyslexic children: A
Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Jenner, A., Fulbright, magnetic source imaging approach. Cerebral
R. K., Fletcher, J. M., Gore, J. C., & Shaywitz, S. Cortex, 10, 809–816.
(2000). The neurobiology of reading and reading Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic
disability (dyslexia). In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, performance profile of children with reading dis-
P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of read- abilities: A regression–based test of the phonolog-
ing research (Vol. III, pp. 229–249). Mahwah, ical–core variable–difference model. Journal of
NJ: Erlbaum. Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.
Stein, J., & Walsh, V. (1997). To see but not to read;
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S., Pugh, K., Constable, the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends in
R., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R., Bronen, R., Neurosciences, 20(4), 147–152.
Fletcher, J., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., & Gore, J. Talcott, J., Witton, C., McLean, M., Hansen, P.,
(1995). Sex differences in the functional organi- Rees, A., Green, G., & Stein, J. (2000). Dynamic
zation of the brain for language. Nature, 373, sensory sensitivity and children’s word decoding
607–609. skills. Proceedings of the National Academy Sci-
ence USA, 97, 2952–2957.
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Tallal, P. (2000). The science of literacy: From the
Mencl, W. E., Fullbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., laboratory to the classroom. Proceedings of the
Constable, R. T., Marchione, K. M., Fletcher, J. National Academy of Science USA, 97, 2402–
M., Lyon, G. R., & Gore, J. C. (2002). Disrup- 2404.
tion of posterior brain systems for reading in chil- Temple, E., Poldrack, R., Salidas, J., Deutsch, G.,
dren with developmental dyslexia. Biological Tallal, P., Merzenich, M., & Gabrieli, J. (2001).
Psychiatry, 52, 101–110. Disrupted neural responses to phonological and
orthographic processing in dyslexic children: An
Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific Ameri- fMRI study. NeuroReport, 12, 299–307.
can, 275(5), 98–104. Torgesen, J. K. (1995). Phonological awareness: A
critical factor in dyslexia. Towson MD: Orton
Shaywitz, S. E. (1998). Current concepts: Dyslexia. Dyslexia Society.
New England Journal of Medicine, 338(5), Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G.
307–312. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the
promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psy-
Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). A new and complex science- chological Review, 97(4), 488–522.
based program for reading problems at any level. Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., Stevenson, J.,
New York: Knopf. Gilger, J. W., & Pennington, B. F. (1992). Gender
ratios among reading–disabled children and their
Shaywitz, S. E., Escobar, M. D., Shaywitz, B. A., siblings as a function of parental impairment.
Fletcher, J. M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a 33(7), 1229–1239.
normal distribution of reading ability. New Eng- Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of
land Journal of Medicine, 326(3), 145–150. phonological processes and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bul-
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., Holahan, J. M., letin, 101, 192–212.
Shneider, A. E., Marchione, K. E., Stuebing, K. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
K., Francis, D. J., Pugh, K. R., & Shaywitz, B. A. Children—Third edition (WISC–III). San Anto-
(1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut nio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Longitudinal Study at adolescence. Pediatrics, Witelson, S. F., & Kigar, D. L. (1992). Sylvian fis-
104, 1351–1359. sure morphology and asymmetry in men and
women: Bilateral differences in relation to hand-
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Dyslexia. edness in men. Journal of Comparative Neurolo-
In K. Swaiman & S. Ashwal (Eds.), Pediatric neu- gy, 323, 326–340.
rology: Principles and practice (3rd ed., Vol. 1, Wolf, M. (1991). Naming speed and reading: The
pp. 576–584). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., &
Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading dis-
ability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecti-
cut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 264(8), 998–1002.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Ful-
bright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. E.,
Shankweiler, D. P., Liberman, A. M., Skudlarski,
P., Fletcher, J. M., Katz, L., Marchione, K. E., La-

Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia 531

contribution of the cognitive neurosciences. deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexi-
Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 123–141. as. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3),
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Auto- 415–438.
maticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A lon- Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Wood-
gitudinal study in average and impaired readers. cock–Johnson Psycho–Educational Battery—
Child Development, 57, 988–1000. Revised (WJ–R). Allen, TX: Developmental
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double– Learning Materials.

32

What Have We Learned about Learning
Disabilities from Qualitative Research?:

A Review of Studies

Charles MacArthur

Qualitative methods have become increas- methodologies, of which there are many, or
ingly common in educational research over enter into debates about method and episte-
the past two decades. For example, the Edu- mology, I review the research that has been
cational Researcher regularly publishes arti- done in the field using qualitative methods
cles on controversies about the theoretical and attempt to answer by example the fol-
grounding of qualitative approaches (e.g., lowing questions:
Peshkin, 2000). Qualitative research has
had important representatives in special ed- 1. What qualitative research has been done
ucation as well, in particular the researchers on learning disabilities? What topics,
at Syracuse University (Bogdan & Biklen, theories, and questions have been ad-
1982; Ferguson, Ferguson, & Taylor, 1992). dressed?
However, qualitative research has still not
had a major impact within the field of learn- 2. What methodologies and theoretical
ing disabilities (LD). One reason may be the grounding have been used, and what are
defining focus of the field on individual dif- the strengths and limitations of those
ferences based on neurological condition methods?
and cognition (Kavale & Forness, 1998),
which is in conflict with predominant mod- 3. What have we learned that we might not
els of qualitative research that focus on un- have learned using other methods? What
derstanding the influence of social context. other questions should we be asking?
Nonetheless, the body of qualitative re-
search on individuals with LD has grown in The chapter begins with a brief discussion
the past decade. of the general characteristics of qualitative
methodologies and their potential strengths
The purpose of this review is to under- and limitations. Next, I describe procedures
stand what the field has learned from quali- for selection of studies for the review. The
tative research and how it might advance major part of the chapter consists of reviews
our understanding in the future. Rather than of research addressing various topics and
attempt to describe or explain qualitative questions of importance to the field of LD.
The first topic section reviews studies that

532

Qualitative Research 533

attempted to understand the meaning of LD of qualitative methods on studying phenom-
from the perspective of individuals with LD. ena in their natural setting, gathering data
The second section focuses on studies on the from as broad a range of sources as possi-
important policy issue of inclusion. The ble, and developing rich detailed descrip-
third section includes studies that investigat- tions of particular cases. For many qualita-
ed learning and instructional processes in tive researchers, this focus on context arises
classrooms, mostly from a sociocultural from an epistemological stance that reality
perspective. The final section considers is socially constructed (Ferguson et al.,
studies that addressed issues pertaining to 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For others,
the education of culturally diverse students. the focus on context is a practical necessity
In the conclusions, I make some general ob- because of the sheer complexity of factors
servations about the strengths and limita- that influence people and events (Miles &
tions of qualitative research. Huberman, 1984; Strauss, 1987). Experi-
mental research is not as well suited to
Qualitative Research studying complex social settings because the
experimental controls and predefined mea-
Qualitative research defies concise defini- sures change the situation in ways that in-
tion because there are so many variations validate the findings. In this sense, qualita-
that differ in tradition, epistemological as- tive research is practical because it produces
sumptions, theoretical background, and fo- findings that can be applied by practitioners
cal interests, as well as in specific methods. in real world settings.
Jacob (1987) defined qualitative research in
terms of core traditions that gave rise to dif- A second, and related, characteristic is the
ferent approaches and theoretical perspec- open-ended nature of qualitative investiga-
tives. Others have attempted to capture the tions. Although researchers begin with a set
essential features of qualitative research in of questions, they avoid a priori definitions
general with descriptions of naturalistic in- of constructs, categories, hypotheses, and
quiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or interpre- data sources in favor of generating them
tivist research (Ferguson et al., 1992). A during data collection. Data collection and
lively debate continues about what counts interpretation occur simultaneously so that
as qualitative research and how to make initial interpretations and new questions
theoretical and methodological progress can guide further data collection. This ap-
(Putney, Green, Dixon, & Kelly, 1999). proach permits the development of interpre-
tations and theories that are grounded in
Despite variability in theory and method, the particular context under study (Strauss,
approaches to qualitative research share a 1987). Thus, it is consistent with the overall
set of overlapping features giving them goal of qualitative research to describe so-
a family resemblance. If the prototypical cial phenomena in ways that capture the or-
quantitative study is an experimental study ganization, interpretation, and meaning of
with random assignment and quantitative the phenomena as constructed by the people
measures of adequate validity and reliabili- involved. It also provides flexibility in ex-
ty designed to establish causality and/or amining social situations at multiple levels
permit prediction and control, then the pro- from the overall culture, to institutions, to
totypical qualitative study is an ethno- group and individual behavior.
graphic investigation of a culture using par-
ticipant observation, interview, and analysis A third characteristic of much qualitative
of artifacts designed to understand the research is a focus on understanding the
meaning of cultural activities to members of meaning of events and constructs from an
the culture. A few general characteristics of emic, or insider, perspective. The familiar
qualitative research stand out in most ac- methods of participant observation, inter-
counts. view, and analysis of artifacts are well suited
to understanding the world as experienced
The first characteristic is a focus on un- by the people being studied. Bruner (1990)
derstanding people, events, and constructs contended that there are two irreducible
in their full social and cultural context. ways of knowing the world, the narrative
From this commitment flows the emphasis and the scientific. The scientific mode seeks
explanations that are context free and can

534 METHODOLOGY

be verified by appeal to formal procedures, Selection of Studies for Review
whereas the narrative mode seeks explana-
tions that are particular to the context and Qualitative research, as discussed previous-
capture the meaning of experience. Accord- ly, includes a wide range of methods and
ing to Bruner, narrative is the primary way theoretical perspectives, so that any defini-
that people represent the world and their tion of qualitative methods is bound to be
own identities. Qualitative research, by rep- controversial. However, a procedural defini-
resenting the world as experienced by the tion was necessary to select studies for the
people studied, gives a voice to those peo- review, and a fairly inclusive definition was
ple, in many cases to people such as those used. I included studies that were described
with disabilities who would not otherwise using terms such as “qualitative,” “ethno-
be heard (Pugach, 2001). graphic,” “interpretive,” and “case study,”
and studies that relied on analysis of field
A fourth characteristic of qualitative re- notes, interviews, or transcripts of dis-
search that separates it not from quantita- course. Studies were not included if inter-
tive research but from other forms of narra- view or observation data were reduced to
tive knowing such as literature and simple quantitative categories for interpretation
storytelling is the use of systematic proce- (e.g., surveys conducted by interview). Nor
dures for gathering, analyzing, and inter- were case studies of students included in
preting data. Regardless of the particular which data were primarily derived from as-
methods for collecting and analyzing data, sessments (e.g., clinical case studies or
qualitative researchers stress the importance analysis of errors on assessment tasks).
of procedures for ensuring the trustworthi- However, studies that combined qualitative
ness of data and checking the validity of in- and quantitative methods were included. In
terpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; addition to fitting a definition of qualitative,
Strauss, 1987). Frequently mentioned pro- reports needed to include at least some min-
cedures include prolonged engagement, tri- imal description of the data collected and
angulation using multiple data sources, the method of analysis; this criterion elimi-
systematic procedures for coding and orga- nated quite a few papers that provided a
nizing data, and checking interpretations narrative description of students or class-
with participants and other researchers. room settings without any information that
One of the potential problems in reporting would permit the reader to determine the
qualitative research is that it is often diffi- trustworthiness of the information. Finally,
cult to convey in sufficient detail the proce- studies had to include individuals with LD.
dures employed, especially in journal-length Reviews of literature and theoretical papers
articles. Thus, it is often difficult for readers were not included in the set of articles re-
to determine whether sound research prac- viewed, though many of them are refer-
tices were followed. enced as background. The selection was fur-
ther limited to published journal articles,
A final characteristic is that qualitative re- books, and chapters.
search seeks understanding of particular
cases in context rather than seeking to es- Selection of studies began with a search
tablish generalizable principles. It is not that of the ERIC database crossing terms related
qualitative researchers are unconcerned to qualitative methods (e.g., “qualitative,”
about whether their findings apply to other “ethnographic,” “discourse analysis,” “case
situations but that their theoretical stances study,” and “interpretive”) with various
and methods lead them to make claims only forms of the term “learning disability” for
about the particular settings studied. Gener- the 11 years from 1991 to 2001. Next, one
alization is possible but only by comparing journal on special education and three
the features of the settings studied with oth- specifically on LD (Exceptional Children,
er situations to see whether the findings Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning
might apply and by the accumulation of Disability Quarterly, and Learning Disabili-
multiple studies. A difficulty in reporting ties Research and Practice) were hand-
qualitative research is the problem of com- searched for the same period. Finally, refer-
municating enough of the critical informa- ences in these articles were pursued. Though
tion about context to make such generaliza- a systematic search was made, it is likely
tion possible.

Qualitative Research 535

that some important research was missed ample, in a classic study, Bogdan and Taylor
that was published in other journals or in (1982) told the life stories, from their own
books. point of view, of two people who had been
labeled retarded by the system and had lived
The numbers of papers published in spe- in a variety of homes and institutions. These
cial education and LD journals is of some case histories demonstrated that persons la-
interest. All numbers are for the 11 years beled mentally retarded are individuals with
1991–2001. In Exceptional Children, 54 ar- a range of competencies, emotions, and
ticles using qualitative research were pub- needs like anyone, and that these two indi-
lished, 5 theoretical papers and 49 research viduals had been damaged by the treatment
studies, including 14 on students with LD. they received from society. The authors re-
The number of articles per year increased jected the concept of mental retardation as a
substantially from 2.4 (range 0–4) in the social construction that tells little about in-
first 5 of those years to 7.8 (range 7–8) in dividuals and serves to justify society in ex-
the last 5 years. In the Journal of Learning cluding the “retarded” from normal lives,
Disabilities, a total of 38 articles with quali- warehousing them in institutions and deny-
tative approaches were published, a number ing them education, work, and lives in the
substantially increased by the 22 articles community. The studies of individuals with
published as part of a series edited by LD are, perhaps, not as dramatic but
Poplin (1995). Of the 38 articles, 9 were nonetheless offer insights into their self-
theoretical pieces and 8 were eliminated be- perceptions and their views on the effects of
cause they reported no methods, leaving 21 their disabilities and the impact of labeling
studies included in this review. In Learning and special education.
Disability Quarterly, total articles using
qualitative research numbered 21 with no This category includes seven studies of
trend over time. Omitting 5 theoretical es- the views of adults with LD, three studies of
says and 2 studies that had no description the perspectives of students on the meaning
of methods left 14 studies for the review. In of LD, and five studies that focused particu-
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, larly on students’ views about inclusion.
20 articles using qualitative research were The studies of adults included vocationally
found, including 4 theoretical papers and successful adults, college students, recent
16 research studies. In addition, 17 papers dropouts, and teachers who themselves had
were found in other journals or book chap- LD. Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff (1992; Ger-
ters. In sum, 82 qualitative studies focusing ber & Reiff, 1991; Reiff, Gerber, & Gins-
on individuals with LD or their parents, berg, 1993) studied adults who were suc-
teachers, and school programs were re- cessful vocationally to understand patterns
viewed. of functioning responsible for their success.
They conducted lengthy ethnographic inter-
Insider View of Learning Disabilities views and administered measures of self-
esteem, achievement motivation, and work-
One of the frequently cited characteristics of place relationships. Repeated interviews of-
qualitative research is its focus on interpret- fered the opportunity to check emerging in-
ing and understanding the views of insiders terpretations with the participants. In one
to a culture (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Fergu- paper (Gerber et al., 1992), they compared
son et al., 1992; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). the responses of 46 highly successful adults
Traditional quantitative research has inves- with 25 moderately successful adults and
tigated the views of students with LD and found no differences on the quantitative
their teachers and parents through the use measures. The interviews were coded and
of surveys and questionnaires. Ethnograph- analyzed for themes that the adults believed
ic research, in contrast, seeks understanding accounted for their success. The overall
of the meanings ascribed to concepts and theme found in the analysis was one of con-
activities by prolonged engagement with in- trol, with the highly successful adults
dividuals in their cultural settings using par- demonstrating greater goal orientation,
ticipant observation, interview, and artifacts ability to reframe their LD in positive ways,
as data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). For ex- learned creativity, adaptability, persistence,
and understanding of social situations. A

536 METHODOLOGY

second paper (Reiff et al., 1993) reported ize their peers’ negative stereotypes, but all
their analysis of a single question about the remembered times they had felt they had se-
adults’ definition of LD. Most of the adults rious personal deficiencies. Most claimed to
provided traditional responses, such as pro- have made peace with their LD placements,
cessing difficulty, limitations in reading, or often through involvement in nonacademic
underachievement, though a few defined activities. However, one student continued
their problem as learning differences rather to experience painful feelings of low self-
than as disabilities. esteem and exclusion from school activities
and peers. Students reported mixed feelings
In a later study (Shessel & Reiff, 1999), about the effectiveness of their LD classes.
14 adults with LD representing a wide On one hand, they did not find the classes
range of educational attainment (10th grade challenging and did not feel they had gained
to master’s degree) and age (26 to 60) were the skills they needed. On the other hand,
interviewed. Four negative impacts of LD they did not think it was reasonable to ex-
were identified: problems in daily living and pect that teachers in regular classes could
on the job due to limited reading, spatial meet their needs within the regular curricu-
difficulties, and time management; social lum. Given the realities of schools, they pre-
isolation often attributed to feelings of dif- ferred to be in LD classes where they could
ference developed in their school years; get help and work at their own level.
emotional health issues of stress, anxiety,
and depression, again often attributed to Five studies focused specifically on issues
negative school experiences; and the impos- related to inclusion, including students’
tor phenomenon, a sense that any success preferences for inclusive or resource room
was due to false impressions of competence classes, views on instructional adaptations,
which might be exposed as fraud. On the and grouping in inclusive classrooms. Reid
other hand, several respondents also dis- and Button (1995) reported a case study of
cussed positive impacts, believing that their a middle school girl based on an individual
LD had made them better persons, allowed interview and a group discussion on plan-
them to think creatively, increased their sen- ning an essay about what it was like to have
sitivity and desire to help others, and im- LD. They identified themes of isolation, un-
proved them as helping professionals. dervaluing, and oppression by a system that
was not responsive to students’ needs or
Three studies focused on developing a feelings. Albinger (1995) analyzed inter-
complex understanding of elementary and views with five elementary students in her
secondary school students’ perspectives own resource room classes. The students re-
about the impact of LD. For example, ported that other students called them
Guterman (1995) studied nine high school names and it made them feel as if there was
students who had been identified as LD in something wrong with them, though older
elementary school and were currently students had a better understanding of their
placed in a mix of LD and regular classes. disabilities. Four of the five students report-
She interviewed them repeatedly over the ed fabricating stories for their peers to hide
course of a semester both individually and the fact that they were going to the resource
in small groups and gathered data from room. Pugach and Wesson (1995) investi-
their files. Students also wrote autobiogra- gated the other side of the story, conducting
phies recounting their school histories. Ini- interviews with students with and without
tial interpretations were checked with the LD in an inclusive fifth-grade classroom co-
students, and another researcher audited the taught by general and special education
data. All students reported negative effects teachers. They reported a highly positive so-
of LD on acceptance by their normally cial climate characterized by positive atti-
achieving peers. They felt that their peers tudes toward themselves and others, an ac-
had negative stereotypes about LD and saw ceptance of giving and receiving help from
them as less intelligent. Consequently, they peers and both teachers, and positive images
made efforts to conceal the fact that they of all teachers.
went to LD classes. The intensity of the in-
terviews enabled the researcher to get be- A pair of studies by Vaughn, Klinger, and
yond superficial responses. For example, their colleagues (Forgan & Vaughn, 2000;
students claimed that they did not internal- Klinger, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & For-

Qualitative Research 537

gan, 1998) used a combination of quantita- tative studies of students’ perceptions can
tive and qualitative methods to analyze in- potentially claim wider generalizability,
terviews on students’ preferences for re- though they often do not include represen-
source room or inclusive placements and tative samples either.
grouping practices for reading instruction.
For example in one study (Klinger et al., Whatever the limitations of interviews,
1998), 16 students with LD and 16 without these studies did provide a voice for individ-
LD, who had had experience with both re- uals with LD that is not often heard. A com-
source room and inclusive classroom mod- mon theme in these studies of the insider
els, were interviewed about their prefer- view on LD is the emotional problems and
ences. Responses were categorized with social isolation resulting from feelings of
checks for interrater reliability, and num- difference and inadequacy and the attempt
bers of students with LD and without giving to conceal LD out of shame or, perhaps, a
each response were reported. Students with realistic expectation of discrimination.
LD were about evenly split in overall prefer- Adults (Shessel & Reiff, 1999), high school
ence for the two settings, but majorities students (Guterman, 1995), and elementary
thought that the resource room helped them school students (Albinger, 1995; Reid &
learn and the inclusive class helped them Button, 1995) all reported similar experi-
make friends. No strong emotions were pre- ences of negative stereotypes and exclusion
sented except for one LD student who dis- by peers, in some cases balanced by a more
liked the resource room because his friends positive acceptance of their disability and
had teased him. even a feeling that it had strengthened them
in some way. The studies of successful
The studies included in this section relied adults with LD (Gerber et al., 1992; Reiff et
primarily on qualitative analysis of inter- al., 1993) focused on their ability to cope
views to understand the views of individuals with the world after school. Of course,
with LD. Interview transcripts were ana- these adults are not representative of most
lyzed inductively for categories of responses graduates of special education programs.
guided by general questions. The best of the However, by highlighting the positive attrib-
studies, such as those by Gerber, Reiff, and utes of these individuals, the studies raised
their colleagues and the study by Guterman questions about whether students with LD
(1995), made use of repeated interviews are disadvantaged by placement in special
that provided the opportunity to get to programs that focus on their limitations
know the respondents, to pursue leads, and rather than their strengths. Perhaps educa-
to check their initial interpretations with the tion in inclusive classrooms would help to
respondents. They also gathered data from avoid negative stereotypes and better sup-
formal assessments to describe the partici- port students’ individual development. We
pants. Extended interviews permit a depth turn now to research on inclusion.
of understanding of individual views that
cannot be gathered in other ways. However, Inclusion
this methodology has limitations as well.
First, the content of the interviews is subject In the introductory chapter to a book writ-
to interviewers’ biases in the course of ex- ten with his colleagues on mainstreaming
tended interaction, as well as by the views (Biklen, Bogdan, Ferguson, Searl, & Taylor,
that the respondents wish to project. For the 1985), Biklen points out that the appropri-
most part, these studies did not use data ate question is not whether mainstreaming
from interviews with friends, parents, or is a good idea but, rather, what it means in
teachers or from participant observation to various school contexts and what it takes to
check on the interpretations derived from implement effective mainstreaming pro-
the interviews. Second, generalization is grams. Like many questions of school poli-
problematic, especially when researchers do cy, inclusion of students with disabilities is a
not explain the reasons for selection of par- complex issue that involves principles of
ticular cases (Reid & Button, 1995). Gener- civil rights, cultural beliefs about disability,
alization is enhanced when researchers use school funding, organizational structures,
purposive sampling as in the studies of suc- teacher and student attitudes, staff develop-
cessful adults (Gerber et al., 1992). Quanti-

538 METHODOLOGY

ment, and classroom interactions. Qualita- ganized around a series of questions about
tive methods are well suited to the study of the meaning and practice of inclusion and
complex issues and programs in natural set- its implications for personnel preparation.
tings (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Peck & Though their methods did not provide suffi-
Furman, 1992; Strauss, 1987). The open- cient length of engagement to develop an in-
ended and flexible nature of qualitative depth understanding of the programs stud-
methodology permits researchers to discov- ied, their study did offer a broad view of a
er the concepts, activities, and structures range of programs.
that are meaningful to participants in the
context, to generate explanations, and to Most prominently, Baker and Zigmond
check them with further data collection. (1995) concluded that there was little spe-
cial instruction occurring in inclusive class-
A relatively large number of studies were rooms. Some minor accommodations were
found on inclusion of students with LD in made, and general education teachers im-
general education classes. In addition to the plemented teaching practices recommended
studies of student perceptions of inclusion by special educators, such as strategy in-
discussed previously, there were 22 separate struction, for all the students, but there was
studies on inclusion contained in 28 pub- almost no “individually designed, intensive,
lished reports. The majority of these studies remedial instruction of students who were
described inclusion programs at the school clearly struggling with the schoolwork they
or classroom level with a focus on describ- were being given.” (Baker & Zigmond,
ing the instruction received by students with 1995, p. 178). They also noted that inclu-
LD. These studies covered schoolwide inclu- sion was defined differently across schools.
sion programs, classrooms of teachers nom- For example, in some schools, it was seen as
inated as effective at inclusion, and class- a voluntary program requiring individual
rooms co-taught by teams of regular and commitment from teachers who chose to
special educators. Several studies focused on co-teach, whereas other schools implement-
staff development or preservice training, in- ed it as a schoolwide commitment. Respons-
cluding a series of studies on consulting es to the study were divided on whether the
teachers. authors thought inclusion was workable.
For example, Gerber (1995) interpreted the
One influential study by Zigmond and study as evidence that inclusive education
Baker (Zigmond, 1995; see also Baker & programs cannot meet the special needs of
Zigmond, 1995) was reported in a special students with LD because they introduce
issue of the Journal of Special Education, more diversity in the classroom than teach-
together with responses from seven scholars ers can manage. On the other side, Pugach
and educators. Zigmond and Baker con- (1995) argued that the cases represented
ducted a series of case studies in five ele- only an initial effort at inclusion and that
mentary schools across the country that more fundamental reform of educational
were implementing models of full-time in- practice in both general and special educa-
clusive education. In 2-day site visits, re- tion is needed to develop classrooms where
searchers focused on the educational experi- all students can succeed.
ences of two target students with LD.
Students were observed for 2 full days using It is important to note that qualitative
structured field notes. Interviews were con- studies of the instruction provided in re-
ducted with the students, their general and source room programs have not presented a
special education teachers, their parents, the more positive picture. Vaughn, Moody, and
principal, and administrators. In addition, Schumm (1998) studied reading instruction
students and their classmates completed an in 14 elementary resource rooms, based on
assessment of basic academic skills and stu- interviews at the beginning and end of the
dent records and other documents were re- year and three observations. They reported
viewed. Case studies were written for each that most teachers used whole-class instruc-
school describing the context for inclusion, tion with little individualization despite a
the model of inclusion, the roles of general wide range of reading abilities. A follow-up
and special education teachers and other with six of the teachers 2 years later
staff, and the educational experiences of the (Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000)
target students. Cross-case analysis was or- found that teachers taught more phonics

Qualitative Research 539

but still did not individualize instruction Walther-Thomas (1997) investigated co-
significantly. teaching by 119 teachers in 18 elementary
and 7 middle schools using single interviews
Case studies of successful inclusion have and observations of each teacher. Rice and
focused their analysis on how inclusion can Zigmond (2000) used interviews and obser-
be conducted successfully. Scruggs and Mas- vations to investigate co-teaching by 17 sec-
tropieri (1994b) studied three teachers rec- ondary teachers in Australia and the United
ommended as successful in integrating stu- States. In both studies, teachers reported
dents with disabilities into their middle that strong administrative support, a
school science classes. Researchers observed schoolwide commitment to inclusion, ade-
and videotaped instruction for several quate planning time, and personal and pro-
weeks at the beginning and end of the fessional compatibility were important for
school year, interviewed the teachers and success. At the secondary level (Rice & Zig-
students frequently, interviewed administra- mond, 2000), lack of content-area expertise
tors, and gathered student work. Analytic by special education teachers was often a
procedures included coding, member problem.
checks, and systematic search for support-
ing and disconfirming evidence for each Another model for supporting inclusion is
claim. They reported that students with LD the use of special educators as consulting
were able to participate in science activities teachers. Gersten and his colleagues (Ger-
successfully and received special support. sten, Darch, Davis, & George, 1991; Ger-
They identified seven variables associated sten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995;
with mainstreaming success: (1) administra- Marks & Gersten, 1998) developed and im-
tive support, (2) consulting support from plemented a model of consulting teaching
special educators, (3) an accepting positive and conducted three intensive qualitative
atmosphere, (4) appropriate curriculum studies on factors that make consulting suc-
with hands-on activities, (5) effective gener- cessful and on the training needed by con-
al teaching skills (e.g., structure and clarity), sulting teachers. In their model, consulting
(6) peer assistance, and (7) disability-specif- teachers worked with 8 to 12 general educa-
ic teaching skills (e.g., using explicit, con- tion teachers providing recommendations
crete explanations). Based on this and other for individual students, demonstration
research, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1995) teaching, coaching, and problem solving, all
proposed a set of instructional features that focused on research-based methods for
could be used to evaluate either inclusion or reading instruction (e.g., reciprocal teach-
resource room classes. ing). One study (Gersten et al., 1995) inves-
tigated the consulting process through case
One model for inclusion that has been in- studies of the coaching received by 12 gen-
vestigated in several studies is co-teaching eral education teachers. Based on observa-
by general and special educators. Mac- tions and audiotapes of consulting sessions,
Arthur and Rozmairek (1999) reported two classroom observations, and regular inter-
case studies of successful inclusion based on views with teachers over multiple years, the
full-time co-teaching. In this model, teach- researchers identified several key issues that
ers shared responsibility for classes of about consulting teachers needed to consider.
30 students including 6–10 students with First, the process of consulting typically re-
disabilities, mostly LD. The teachers sulted in uneven progress and acceptance of
thought that co-teaching provided the level coaching with temporary setbacks followed
of resources necessary for intensive small- by further development. Second, consulting
group and individual teaching for students required great sensitivity to teachers’ anxi-
who needed it without pulling them out of ety about being evaluated. Finally, general
the classroom. Observations confirmed the education teachers tended to have a differ-
success of the teachers in providing specially ent perspective because they focused more
designed instruction for students with dis- on the whole class than on individuals. An-
abilities and other low-achieving students. other study (Gersten et al., 1991) compared
Teachers agreed that successful co-teaching two consulting teachers who had received
required a high degree of personal and pro- intensive apprenticeship training with six
fessional compatibility and a commitment who had received more typical training. Ap-
to integrate the students as fully as possible.

540 METHODOLOGY

prenticeship training led to dramatic differ- el that has been investigated intensively is to
ences in the amount of time spent actually use special education teachers as consul-
advising teachers on instruction and demon- tants to general education teachers. Case
strating effective approaches. Teachers studies make it clear that consulting is a de-
found the apprenticeship consulting teach- manding role requiring considerable knowl-
ers much more helpful. A third study edge and interpersonal skill that is best
(Marks & Gersten, 1998) pursued the in- developed through apprenticeships with ex-
vestigation of the consulting process with a perienced consultants. In short, the develop-
focus on factors that influenced the level of ment of effective inclusion programs is a
engagement of general education teachers in complex undertaking. Certainly, one re-
the process. quirement for successful inclusion is effec-
tive teaching (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
Looking beyond the classroom level, a 1994a). The next section of this review fo-
pair of studies by Mamlin and colleagues cuses directly on research that attempts to
(Mamlin, 1999; Mamlin & Harris, 1998) understand in some detail the nature of ef-
addressed school level factors that affected fective instruction for students with LD.
the success of inclusion and prereferral pro-
grams. In one detailed case study of an ele- Classroom Instructional Processes
mentary school where inclusion was suc-
cessful, Mamlin and Harris (1998) found a A number of studies have used qualitative
consistent philosophy among teachers and methods to understand the dynamics of in-
principal that all children were there to struction and learning in classroom settings.
learn, that the staff functioned as a team, Most of these studies are based on sociocul-
that the school was expected to be flexible tural or social constructivist theories that
in meeting students’ needs, and that needs emphasize the importance of social context
could be met without formal referral to spe- to learning (Englert & Palincsar, 1991;
cial education except in a few cases in which Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Sociocultural
more resources were needed. In contrast, a theories contend that learning and literacy
case study of a secondary school (Mamlin, are defined socially and culturally at many
1999) found no progress toward inclusion levels: by the society and culture as a whole,
despite a formal policy and attributed the at the institutional level, in families, and in
failure to an entrenched culture of segrega- individual classrooms. Furthermore, stu-
tion and ineffective leadership from the dents need to participate in meaningful liter-
principal. acy activities to develop an understanding
of the meaning and purpose of literacy, why
Qualitative studies have made a signifi- and when to use strategies, and how to use
cant contribution to answering the ques- literacy to meet goals. Also, sociocultural
tions posed by Biklen (Biklen et al., 1985) theories contend that mature thought
about what inclusion means in various processes develop through interactions with
school contexts and what it takes to imple- others, particularly verbal interactions scaf-
ment effective inclusion programs. Clearly, folded by adults (Vygotsky, 1978). Such
it takes a strong commitment on the part of scaffolded instruction is extremely complex
general and special education teachers and because it requires the adult to monitor the
administration (Mamlin, 1999). However, it students’ developing understanding and
takes much more than goodwill as demon- provide just the right amount of explana-
strated by the case studies of inclusion pro- tion, modeling, and prompting at each point
grams across the country in which students in time (Pressley, Hogan, Wharton-McDon-
were not receiving instruction adapted to ald, Mistretta, & Ettenberger, 1996). To un-
their needs despite teachers and administra- derstand learning, then, it is necessary to ex-
tors who supported the programs (Baker & amine in detail the interactions that occur in
Zigmond, 1995; Zigmond, 1995). Case classrooms and the ways that teachers and
studies have investigated alternative models students think about the interactions as well
for using special education resources in the as the larger school and societal influences
development of inclusion programs. For ex- (McPhail & Palincsar, 1998). Quantitative
ample, case studies have shown the poten-
tial of co-teaching and highlighted some of
the requirements for success. Another mod-

Qualitative Research 541

outcome measures may be used to assess Magnusson, Collins, & Cutter, 2001). For
learning, but qualitative methods are need- example, Palincsar and colleagues (1995)
ed to understand the instructional interac- conducted an exploratory case study in an
tions and the meanings ascribed to learning elementary special education classroom of a
activities by teachers and students. Qualita- literature unit focused on the theme of
tive research methods have been developed friendship. They found that students’
that permit study of the culture of the class- awareness of the theme of friendship devel-
room, the discourse among teachers and oped without explicit instruction in identi-
students, and developmental changes in fying themes and that students’ conceptions
groups as well as individual students. of friendship grew in complexity as indicat-
ed by the language used in discussions. The
A small but growing number of re- work on science education is discussed later.
searchers are applying qualitative research
methods to understand instruction for stu- An important concern in the application
dents with LD. A total of 21 studies were of sociocultural theory to classroom prac-
found in this category. One research group tice and instruction is the degree of explicit
that has developed a systematic program of instruction that is appropriate within a con-
research on classroom processes from a so- text of meaningful activities and social in-
ciocultural perspective includes Englert, teractions. There has been a lively debate in
Mariage, and their colleagues. They have the field of LD about the appropriate
developed programs of literacy instruction balance between explicit instruction and
based on sociocultural principles and con- learning through social participation in
ducted both quantitative and qualitative re- meaningful activities (see special issues on
search on these programs. They have used constructivism: Harris & Graham, 1994).
quasi-experimental methods to demonstrate Some scholars have expressed the view that
the overall impact on learning (Englert, strategy instruction is incompatible with so-
Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, cial constructivism (Poplin, 1988). Mac-
1991). Their qualitative studies have used Arthur, Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, and
discourse analysis methods (Forman & Mc- Harris, (1996) conducted a case study of
Cormick, 1995) to investigate differences two teachers attempting to integrate explicit
between more and less effective teachers instruction in writing strategies into a lan-
(Mariage, 1995), to describe teacher–stu- guage arts program described by the teach-
dent interactions of effective teachers (En- ers as a reading and writing workshop
glert 1992; Englert, Rozendal, & Mariage, based on whole-language principles. Using
1994), and to study classroom interaction participant observation and interview, the
around particular literacy events (Mariage, research focused on the extent to which
2000, 2001). (For further information, see strategy instruction was consistent with
Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27, this vol- teachers’ prior beliefs and practices. After 4
ume.) months of strategy instruction, the teachers
perceived a good fit between strategy in-
Palincsar and various colleagues over struction and the whole-language program,
time have also conducted a number of qual- and classroom observations supported their
itative studies of classroom processes in- view. First, the teachers’ emphasis on au-
volving students with LD or reading prob- thentic writing tasks provided a meaningful
lems. The initial work on reciprocal context for teaching strategies. Second, the
teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) used teachers found that strategies offered a way
quantitative measures of reading compre- to develop students’ competence and in-
hension to demonstrate learning outcomes crease their independence. Gains in quality
and qualitative analysis of student–teacher and organization on quantitatively scored
discourse to explain how teachers scaffold- writing samples confirmed the teachers’ as-
ed student performance. In the period cov- sessment of improved writing performance.
ered by the present review, she has conduct- Third, the teachers’ strong commitment to
ed qualitative studies of literacy learning student independence led them to transfer
(Palincsar & Klenk, 1992; Palincsar, Parec- control of strategies to students as soon as
ki, & McPhail, 1995) and of inquiry ap- possible. Finally, their interactive teaching
proaches to science education (Cutter, Pal- style and emphasis on conferencing sup-
incsar, & Magnusson, 2002; Palincsar,

542 METHODOLOGY

ported effective scaffolding of the strategies. terviews of teachers and students, and stu-
The work of Englert and her colleagues, dent work. Contrary to the initial beliefs of
mentioned previously, also supports the ef- teachers, who saw small-group work as a
fectiveness of including self-regulated strate- nonproblematic way to provide peer sup-
gies in social constructivist approaches to port for low-achieving students, the case
instruction. studies showed clear patterns of students
with LD being subtly or not so subtly ex-
The studies previously mentioned have all cluded from participation in the groups. In
focused on literacy learning, but qualitative phase 2, “advanced teaching practices” to
methods have also been used to study learn- address the problems revealed by the case
ing in content-area classes. Scruggs and studies were developed collaboratively by
Mastropieri (1994a), in a case study of sci- the teachers and researchers during summer
ence instruction in an elementary special ed- workshops, and these practices (e.g.,
ucation class, focused on how students with teacher monitoring and facilitation of
LD would construct knowledge in an in- thinking, reading support, attention to
quiry-based approach. They reported many group composition) were implemented by
instances of active construction of knowl- four teachers. In phase 2, quantitative per-
edge based on inquiry but also found that formance assessment measures were used to
carefully structured teacher explanations, compare the performance of LD, low-
adaptations such as enhanced vocabulary achieving, and high-achieving students dur-
instruction, effective behavior management, ing phases 1 and 2; all groups of students
and careful coaching by teachers were nec- did better in the second year with the ad-
essary. vanced teaching practices. Qualitative
analyses were used to relate patterns in
A research institute with teams from four gains for the three groups to patterns of
institutions (REACH) has been conducting implementation by the teachers. Another
research on the inclusion of students with qualitative study (Cutter et al., 2002) inves-
LD and other disabilities in classrooms im- tigated the process of collaborative develop-
plementing challenging curricula in science, ment of the advanced teaching practices
social studies, math, and literature. Across during the summer workshops.
all teams, the curricula are based on four
principles: learning involves inquiry ap- The REACH team focused on literature
proaches using authentic tasks; cognitive led by Morocco has focused on implementa-
strategies are integrated with instruction; tion of schoolwide thematic studies of liter-
learning is socially mediated through inter- ature using a literacy cycle that aims to help
action with teachers and peers; and dis- students acquire deep understanding of lit-
course is structured as constructive conver- erary texts and of interpretation processes
sations. A variety of approaches are being through frequent opportunities to engage in
used to support effective learning by stu- authentic, meaningful reading and writing
dents with disabilities. All teams are using a opportunities, supported by strategic think-
combination of quantitative and qualitative ing and constructive conversations with
analyses to document learning outcomes peers. In a case study report (Morocco,
and understand classroom processes that af- Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, & Mott, 2002), they
fect learning. used discourse analysis of teacher-led intro-
ductions to a new book and small-group
The REACH team at the University of discussions to understand how students in-
Michigan led by Palincsar and Magnusson terpreted literature in small groups, how
has conducted a systematic program of re- students with disabilities were supported in
search on guided inquiry science instruction those groups, and how teacher discourse
in elementary classrooms that includes two mediated student learning.
qualitative studies focused on inclusion of
students with LD (Cutter et al., 2002; Pal- The REACH team working on mathe-
incsar et al., 2001). Palincsar and col- matics, led by Woodward and Baxter at the
leagues (2001) conducted an innovative de- University of Puget Sound, has focused on
sign experiment with two phases. In the including students with LD in classrooms
first phase, case studies of four students that are using a math curriculum with a
with LD were developed based on partici- strong focus on problem solving. In a recent
pant observation, videotaping, regular in-

Qualitative Research 543

study (Baxter, Woodward, Voorhuis, & methods used. All these researchers made
Wong, 2002), they analyzed the discourse in use of quantitatively scored measures of
a fourth-grade class where the teacher con- student outcomes to evaluate the effective-
scientiously tried to include all students in ness of instruction in pretest–posttest de-
the discussion. They found that discourse signs, quasi-experiments, or design experi-
became markedly more student directed ments. The measures used, however, went
over time with more comments by the beyond standardized measures to include
teacher asking for student reflections on authentic performance assessments, writing
problems, and that students progressed samples, and interviews. These researchers
from reporting calculations to reporting so- found no incompatibility between quantita-
lution strategies and justifying their claims. tive measures and designs and qualitative
The students with LD were included in the investigations of classroom discourse and
discussion but often had difficulty explain- group interactions based on sociocultural
ing their strategies, posing a dilemma for theories. Perhaps, this diversity of method
teachers in that time spent figuring out what is partially explained by the fact that most
they meant and helping them detracted of these researchers began their careers
from helping the class understand a set of studying learning from a primarily cogni-
strategies. tive perspective. As their understanding of
learning changed to incorporate sociocul-
The REACH team responsible for social tural and sociolinguistic concepts, they
studies, led by Ferretti, MacArthur, and found it necessary to adopt new research
Okolo at the University of Delaware, fo- methods that would enable them to investi-
cused on the development of historical un- gate these concepts (McPhail & Palincsar,
derstanding and reasoning. As the culminat- 1998). However, they continued to recog-
ing activity of a sixth-grade unit on nize the importance of individual cognitive
immigration in the early 20th century, stu- development within a social context and
dents debated the issue of whether immi- continued to find it appropriate to assess
grants should have been permitted to come individual learning as well as the social dy-
to this country (MacArthur, Ferretti, & namics of classrooms.
Okolo, 2002). Tests of content knowledge
and interviews scored both quantitatively Qualitative research from a sociocultural
and qualitatively demonstrated overall gains perspective in the field of LD is just begin-
in understanding of key concepts about im- ning to enhance our understanding of the
migration. Discourse analysis of a series of dynamics of learning in classrooms. It has
debates in one class was used to understand illustrated the importance of authentic,
the opportunities afforded by, and the limi- meaningful activities in the development of
tations of, those debates. Analyses of con- understanding. It has shown in some detail
tent and structure showed that students’ dis- how teachers scaffold student learning
course was influenced by the knowledge through dialogue in particular classroom
they gained during the unit, but that the activities (Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27,
rhetorical goal to defend a viewpoint about this volume; Baxter et al., 2002) and
immigration led to distorted positions through the ways they monitor progress and
weakly supported with evidence, especially facilitate group interaction (Palincsar et al.,
at first, though later rounds of the debate 2001). Sociocultural theories can also be ap-
were more balanced and drew more on the plied to collaborative work between re-
breadth of available knowledge. Overall, searchers and teachers to develop instruc-
the debates were more typical of everyday tion and change teachers’ beliefs and
arguments than academic arguments. Im- practice (Cutter, et al., 2002). The research
portantly, from the perspective of special has also investigated the opportunities af-
education, the debates promoted high levels forded by peer collaboration in activities
of engagement and equal participation by such as literacy circles (Morocco et al.,
students with and without LD as well as by 2002) and classroom debates (MacArthur et
boys and girls. al., 2002). Finally, the research has helped
us to understand the challenges involved in
One interesting methodological feature of supporting students with LD in general edu-
the research discussed in this section is the cation.
combination of quantitative and qualitative

544 METHODOLOGY

Culturally Diverse Learners English usage. Sociodramatic play was high-
ly informal. Students’ language was ana-
Controversies about valid assessment, ap- lyzed for the degree of communicative com-
propriate instruction, and overrepresenta- petence displayed in each event (Cazden,
tion in special education classes of racially, 1988). Ruiz (1995a) showed that commu-
ethnically, and linguistically diverse learners nicative competence varied with the degree
have been prominent in the field of special of formality of the classroom event. Stu-
education for many years (Artiles & Trent, dents who performed quite poorly under de-
1994; Reschly, 1984). Reviews of the litera- mands for correct English demonstrated
ture indicate that limited research exists to greater competence in pragmatic language
guide educational practices for English- function, grammar, vocabulary, and confi-
language learners in general (Gersten & dence in informal events. Ruiz (1995b) sug-
Baker, 2000) or culturally diverse learners gested that language assessment would be
with LD in particular (Artiles, Trent, & more accurate if based on informal situa-
Kuan, 1997). Several scholars have called tions than on formal tests, supporting her
for a sociocultural approach to understand- argument with case studies of students that
ing the interactions of culture and disability revealed clear differences among students in
(Bos & Fletcher, 1997; Keogh, Gallimore, language competence with frequent commu-
& Weisner, 1997). Ethnographic methods nicative breakdowns by some students with
with their primary focus on culture are well severe LLD, mild problems for some other
suited to developing an understanding of in- students, and language differences but not
teractions among culture and learning. In disabilities for others.
special education, the ethnographic work of
Harry (1992) with poor, Puerto Rican par- Ruiz, Rueda, Figueroa, and Boothroyd,
ents of children with disabilities demon- (1995) suggested further that classroom
strates the ability of such research to cap- structures characterized by informality and
ture their voices and views about disabilities meaningful context would result in acceler-
and about communication with the schools. ated learning. The Optimal Learning Envi-
However, limited qualitative research has ronments (OLE) program worked with
been done with culturally diverse students teachers in bilingual special education class-
with disabilities, especially in the field of es to implement constructivist instructional
LD. A review by Artiles, Trent, and Kuan approaches, such as writing workshop and
(1997) of two special education and two LD reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
journals for a 22-year period and found 1984). The process of change in teachers’
only 7 qualitative studies (and only 58 beliefs and classroom practices was investi-
quantitative studies) focused on ethnic and gated in a series of five case studies of pro-
linguistic minorities. ject teachers (Ruiz et al., 1995). Teachers’
beliefs about the nature of disability and
The current review identified 10 studies their classroom practices were placed on a
that focused on culturally diverse students continuum from reductionist to holistic/
with LD. Ruiz (1995a, 1995b) reported constructivist (Poplin, 1988). Teachers with
findings from a 2-year ethnographic study the most special education training tended
of a bilingual special education classroom to hold the most reductionist beliefs about
with 10 Latino children labeled language disability. Changes in beliefs about disabili-
learning disabled (LLD). Classroom events ty and in actual classroom practices over the
were analyzed according to contextual fea- 3 years of the project were not related to
tures, such as grouping, topic, teacher goal, each other. These findings may be due to a
turn taking, language (Spanish/English), conceptual flaw in the study in that a belief
and linguistic features. Events were ranked in the reality of individual disabilities was
for degree of formality, or structuring of rated as reductionist.
rules for communication. For example,
lessons for the weakest language users were Like OLE, the method of instructional
relatively informal, structured around conversations (IC) aims to improve student
everyday communication situations, where- acquisition of English and literacy by struc-
as lessons for higher-functioning students turing lessons to encourage thoughtful dis-
were characterized by formal exercises in cussion without focusing on language form
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). IC lessons have

Qualitative Research 545

an instructional purpose but take the form of children and their interactions with
of a natural conversation that permits stu- schools (Pugach, 2001). In addition, socio-
dents to participate at any level of language cultural factors should be considered as re-
competence. Echevarria and McDonough searchers design both quantitative and qual-
(1995) conducted a case study of the imple- itative studies. There is much to recommend
mentation of IC in an elementary bilingual Bos and Fletcher’s (1997) proposal that re-
special education class. Based on extensive search studies routinely include information
observation and interviews, they concluded on contextual factors, such as family and
that IC did provide a holistic context for community culture and teacher back-
learning, particularly through the emphasis ground, along with the student variables
on a central theme for discussion, and that typically required in studies of students with
it provided opportunities for ample student LD.
language development. However, they also
noted that some adaptations, such as more Conclusions
concrete explanations, were needed with
special education students. A small-scale In the foregoing sections, I illustrated the
quantitative study of IC with only five stu- substantive contributions made by qualita-
dents (Echevarria, 1995) found that, com- tive research in four areas of interest to the
pared to a basal approach, IC resulted in field of LD: the insider view on the meaning
more and higher-quality talk during the dis- of LD and on the impact of educational pro-
cussion and more references to theme in grams, the implementation of models of in-
retelling but lower scores on traditional clusive education, the understanding of
reading comprehension measures. It may be classroom instructional processes from a so-
that the focus of IC on language develop- ciocultural perspective, and the education of
ment did not fit these outcome measures as culturally and linguistically diverse students
well as the basal approach’s focus on specif- with LD. We turn now to a consideration of
ic story structure questions. how the distinctive characteristics of quali-
tative methodologies create the opportunity
Clearly, a great deal more research is for addressing these and future questions.
needed to understand how to provide effec-
tive instruction to minority students that is Perhaps, the central characteristic of
sensitive to differences in language and cul- qualitative research is its commitment to
ture. The ethnographic research of Ruiz understanding social issues in their natural
(1995a, 1995b) showed how the commu- context in all its complexity. From this com-
nicative competence of bilingual students mitment come many of the particular char-
identified as LLD varied substantially across acteristics of various qualitative methods.
classroom events depending on the formali- First, qualitative research methods are open
ty of language demands. Such research pro- to the development of constructs and hy-
vides a better understanding of the nature of potheses as part of the research process. Be-
language differences and disabilities and cause of the complexity of social contexts, it
suggests types of classroom activities that is not possible to define all the constructs of
might support language development. Eval- interest prior to the study. This feature gives
uation of instructional programs for cultur- qualitative research an exploratory nature
ally diverse students should combine quan- and makes it possible to investigate un-
titative methods to assess learning outcomes known and unexpected phenomena. For ex-
with qualitative research to understand the ample, the interview studies of successful
classroom processes that contribute to, or adults with LD (Gerber et al., 1992) began
limit, its effectiveness. with general questions about what LD
meant to them and what made them suc-
However, more is needed than research cessful, but they did not and could not
focused specifically on designing programs know in advance what concepts and rela-
for culturally diverse students. Issues of cul- tionships among concepts would emerge
ture should be included widely in research from the data. Similarly, studies of the con-
in special education. Qualitative researchers sulting teacher model (Gersten et al., 1995)
have a special role to play in developing the began in an exploratory mode to identify
field’s understanding of the impact of race,
poverty, language, and culture on the lives

546 METHODOLOGY

features of consulting that influenced posi- text based on the ability to predict events or
tive engagement and change by general edu- delineate causal mechanisms. However,
cation teachers. The features that emerged within a qualitative or interpretive frame-
in initial analysis were then confirmed, or work, one needs to understand the meaning
contradicted, by further data collection and of phenomena within the context of the cul-
analysis focused on those features. In the ture. For example, studies of classroom
studies of how to adapt inquiry science in- processes (Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27,
struction to include students with LD (Pal- this volume; Morocco et al., 2002) seek to
incsar et al., 2001), research began with an understand the meanings of classroom ac-
open-ended exploration of barriers to full tivities from the perspective of teachers and
participation via case studies of individual students because the meanings are essential
students. These findings from case studies to understanding how students learn. Stud-
were then used to develop teaching prac- ies of inclusion (Mamlin, 1999; Mamlin &
tices, which were tested using a combina- Harris, 1998) and of consulting teacher
tion of quantitative and qualitative methods programs (Gersten et al., 1995) found it es-
in the following year. This flexibility of sential to understand the educational beliefs
qualitative methods makes it possible for and conceptions of teachers and principals
them to discover unanticipated relationships to explain factors related to success and fail-
in complex settings and to generate theories. ure.

A second characteristic of qualitative The focus on meanings as perceived by
methods important for understanding social insiders is most obvious in studies that ex-
contexts is the ability to deal with complex- amined the meaning and impact of LD from
ity. Qualitative research is able to deal with the perspective of individuals with disabili-
social phenomena that are organized at ties. For example, studies of adults and old-
multiple levels because of its flexibility in er students (Guterman, 1995; Shessel &
determining units of analysis and analyzing Reiff, 1999) revealed their painful memories
interactions. For example, studies of inclu- of school experiences and continuing diffi-
sion (Baker & Zigmond, 1995; Mamlin, culties in the social, emotional, and practi-
1999) looked across levels of district and cal spheres of life. However, they also dis-
school administration, teacher/classroom, covered beliefs about how the struggles with
and individual students to understand what disabilities had positive effects on their cop-
was happening. Thus, they could search for ing abilities and empathy with others.
interactions between policies made by ad-
ministrators, decisions by teachers, and im- One controversial issue is whether quali-
pacts on students using specific methods de- tative and quantitative methods are compat-
veloped for such analyses (Miles & ible. Some in the field would deny legitima-
Huberman, 1984; Strauss, 1987). Studies of cy to interpretive methods (Kavale &
classroom processes respond to another Forness, 1998). Others maintain that posi-
type of complexity, the complexity of multi- tivist methods are based on flawed assump-
ple verbal interactions among teachers and tions and cannot be reconciled with inter-
students. For example, researchers interest- pretive methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
ed in sociocultural perspectives on learning Poplin, 1988). Bruner (1990) maintained
(Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27, this vol- that there were two fundamentally different
ume; MacArthur et al., 2002; Mariage, modes of perceiving the world, the narrative
2000) or in the learning of linguistically dif- and scientific, and that there was no way to
ferent children (Echevarria, 1995; Ruiz, evaluate the statements from one mode in
1995a) have used discourse analysis to un- terms of the other. Yet, many of the research
derstand the ways that teachers and stu- programs discussed in this review did, in
dents construct the meaning of classroom fact, combine methods that are sometimes
literacy events and the learning opportuni- seen as incompatible. In some cases, qualita-
ties afforded by various discourse events. tive methods were used to enhance a basi-
cally quantitative program of research
A third characteristic is the focus on the (Klinger et al., 1998). Many of the research
meaning of events to participants in the cul- programs focused on classroom processes
ture. Within a quantitative scientific frame- were based on a sociocultural theoretical
work, one might claim to understand a con- foundation often associated with qualitative

Qualitative Research 547

research (Englert & Mariage, Chapter 27, Biklen, D., Bogdan, R., Ferguson, D. L., Searl, S. J.,
this volume; MacArthur et al., 2002; Palinc- Jr., & Taylor, S. J. (1985). Achieving the complete
sar et al., 2001). Nonetheless, they used school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming.
quantitative analysis of student outcomes to New York: Teachers College Press.
evaluate the overall effectiveness of an in-
structional approach in combination with Bogdan, R., & Biklen, D. (1982). Qualitative re-
qualitative methods to understand how the search for education: And introduction to theory
approach worked and how to improve it. and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

One argument for compatibility is that Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1982). Inside out: The
one should use whatever method is useful social meaning of retardation. Toronto: Universi-
for the question at hand. If researchers need ty of Toronto Press.
to demonstrate that a particular instruction-
al approach is effective, it is not enough to Bos, C. S., & Fletcher, T. V. (1997). Sociocultural
show how it works or that the participants considerations in learning disabilities inclusion
in the classroom think it works; evidence is research: Knowledge gaps and future directions.
needed that it produces some learning out- Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12,
comes, and comparisons to other programs 92–99.
may be relevant. Another argument for
compatibility is that all research, including Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge,
experimental work, involves interpretive MA: Harvard University Press.
judgments that are socially constructed. If
one rejects a strong positivist stance and ac- Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The
cepts this position, then quantitative and language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
qualitative research are compatible within a NH: Heinemann.
broader epistemological framework (Howe,
1988). Perhaps, as Peck and Furman (1992) Cutter, J., Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J.
suggest, the tension between qualitative and (2002). Supporting inclusion through case-based
quantitative methods, or scientific and in- vignette conversations. Learning Disabilities Re-
terpretive stances, is productive in stimulat- search and Practice, 17, 186–200.
ing the field to consider a variety of ap-
proaches to answer questions of theoretical Echevarria, J. (1995). Interactive reading instruc-
and practical importance to the field. tion: A comparison of proximal and distal effects
of instructional conversation. Exceptional Chil-
References dren, 61, 536–552.

Albinger, P. (1995). Stories from the resource room: Echevarria, J., & McDonough, R. (1995). An alter-
Piano lessons, imaginary illness, and broken- native reading approach: Instructional conversa-
down cars. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, tions in a bilingual special education setting.
615–621. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10,
108–119.
Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. (1994). Overrepresenta-
tion of minority students in special education: A Englert, C. S. (1992). Writing instruction from a so-
continuing debate. Journal of Special Education, ciocultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and
27, 410–437. social enterprise of writing. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25, 153–172.
Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. (1997).
Learning disabilities empirical research on ethnic Englert, C. S., & Palincsar, A. S. (1991). Reconsid-
minority students: An analysis of 22 years of ering instructional research in literacy from a so-
studies published in selected refereed journals. ciocultural perspective. Learning Disabilities Re-
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, search and Practice, 6, 225–229.
82–91.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., An-
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning thony, H., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making writ-
and practice of inclusion for students with learn- ing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive
ing disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29, strategy instruction in writing in regular and spe-
163–180. cial education classrooms. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 337–372.
Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhuis, J., & Wong, J.,
(2002). We talk about it, but do they get it? Englert, C. S., Rozendal, M. S., & Mariage,
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, M. (1994). Fostering the search for understand-
173–185. ing: A teacher’s strategies for leading cognitive
development in “zones of proximal develop-
ment.” Learning Disability Quarterly, 17,
187–204.

Ferguson, P. M., Ferguson, D. L., & Taylor, S. J.
(1992). Interpreting disability: A qualitative
reader. New York: Teachers College Press.

Forgan, J. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Adolescents
with and without LD make the transition to mid-
dle school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33,
33–43.

Forman, E. A., & McCormick, D. E. (1995).
Discourse analysis: A sociocultural perspec-
tive. Remedial and Special Education, 16,
150–158.

548 METHODOLOGY

Gerber, M. M. (1995). Inclusion at the high-water needs (pp. 30–62). Brookline, MA: Brookline
mark? Some thoughts on Zigmond and Baker’s Books.
case studies of inclusive educational programs. MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., Graham, S.,
Journal of Special Education, 29, 181–190. Molloy, D., & Harris, K. R. (1996). Integration
of strategy instruction into a whole language
Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). classroom: A case study. Learning Disabilities
Identifying alterable patterns in employment suc- Research and Practice, 11, 168–176.
cess for highly successful adults with LD. Journal Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When
of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475–487. inclusion fails. Journal of Special Education, 33,
36–49.
Gerber, P. J., & Reiff, H. B. (1991). Speaking for Mamlin, N., & Harris, K. R. (1998). Elementary
themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adults teachers’ referral to special education in light of
with learning disabilities. Ann Arbor: University inclusion and prereferral: “Every child is here to
of Michigan Press. learn . . . but some of these children are in real
trouble.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know 385–96.
about effective instructional practices for Eng- Mariage, T. V. (1995). Why students learn: The na-
lish-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, ture of teacher talk during reading. Learning Dis-
454–470. ability Quarterly, 18, 214–235.
Mariage, T. V. (2000). Constructing educational
Gersten, R., Darch, C., Davis, G., & George, N. possibilities: A sociolinguistic examination of
(1991). Apprenticeship and intensive training of meaning-making in “sharing chair.” Learning
consulting teachers: A naturalistic study. Excep- Disability Quarterly, 23, 79–104.
tional Children, 57, 226–236. Mariage, T. (2001). Features of an interactive writ-
ing discourse: Conversational involvement, con-
Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. ventional knowledge, and internalization in
(1995). Close to the classroom is close to the “Morning message.” Journal of Learning Dis-
bone: Coaching as a means to translate research abilities, 34, 172–196.
into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, Marks, S. U., & Gersten, R. (1998). Engagement
62, 52–67. and disengagement between special and general
educators: An application of Miles and Huber-
Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of categorical man’s cross-case analysis. Learning Disability
learning disabilities services: The consumer’s Quarterly, 21, 34–56.
view. Exceptional Children, 62, 111–124. McPhail, J. C., & Palincsar, A. S. (1998). The
search for understanding of learning disabilities:
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1994). Construc- A response to Kavale and Forness. Learning Dis-
tivism: Principles, paradigms, and integration. ability Quarterly, 21, 297–305.
Journal of Special Education, 28, 233–247. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative
data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fisch-
the special education system. New York: Teach- er, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource
ers College Press. room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children,
66, 305–316.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-quali- Morocco, C. C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., &
tative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Mott, E. A. (2002). The role of conversation in a
Educational Researcher, 17, 10–16. thematic understanding of literature. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 144–157.
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
review. Review of Educational Research, 57, teaching of comprehension-fostering and com-
1–50. prehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The politics Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering liter-
of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quar- acy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of
terly, 21, 245–273. Learning Disabilities, 25, 211–225.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., &
Keogh, B. K., Gallimore, R., & Weisner, T. (1997). Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to
A sociocultural perspective on learning and learn- all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive
ing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24,
and Practice, 12, 107–113. 15–32.
Palincsar, A. S., Parecki, A. D., & McPhail, J. C.
Klinger, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., (1995). Friendship and literacy through litera-
& Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out: ture. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning 503–510.
Disabilities, 31, 148–158. Peck, C. A., & Furman, G. C. (1992). Qualitative

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic in-
quiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., & Okolo, C. M.
(2002). On defending controversial viewpoints:
Debates of sixth-graders about the desirability of
early 20th century American immigration.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17,
160–172.

MacArthur, C. A., & Rozmairek, D. J. (1999). Full-
time collaborative teaching: Special education in
an inclusive classroom. In S. Graham & K. J.
Harris (Eds.), Teachers working together: En-
hancing the performance of students with special

Qualitative Research 549

research in special education: An evaluative re- Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15,
view. In R. Gaylord-Ross (Ed.), Issues and re- 190–197.
search in special education (pp. 1–42). New Ruiz, N. T. (1995a). The social construction of abil-
York: Teachers College Press. ity and disability: Optimal and at-risk lessons in a
Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in bilingual special education classroom. Journal of
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29, Learning Disabilities, 28, 491–502.
5–9. Ruiz, N. T. (1995b). The social construction of abil-
Poplin, M. (1988). The reductionistic fallacy in ity and disability: Profile types of Latino children
learning disabilities: Replicating the past by re- identified as language learning disabled. Journal
ducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabili- of Learning Disabilities, 28, 476–490.
ties, 21, 389–400. Ruiz, N. T., Rueda, R., Figueroa, R. A., &
Poplin, M. S. (1995). Looking through other lenses Boothroyd, M. (1995). Bilingual special educa-
and listening to other voices: Stretching the tion teachers’ shifting paradigms: Complex re-
boundaries of learning disabilities. Journal of sponses to educational reform. Journal of Learn-
Learning Disabilities, 28, 292–308. ing Disabilities, 28, 622–635.
Pressley, M., Hogan, K., Wharton-McDonald, R., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994a). The
Mistretta, J., & Ettenberger, S. (1996). The chal- construction of scientific knowledge by students
lenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Educa-
of instruction that supports student thinking. tion, 28, 307–321.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994b). Suc-
138–146. cessful mainstreaming in elementary science
Pugach, M. C. (1995). On the failure of imagina- classes: A qualitative investigation of three repu-
tion in inclusive schooling. Journal of Special Ed- tational cases. American Educational Research
ucation, 29, 212–223. Journal, 31, 785–811.
Pugach, M. C. (2001). The stories we choose to tell: Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1995). What makes
Fulfilling the promise of qualitative research for special education special? Evaluating inclusion
special education. Exceptional Children, 67, programs with the PASS variables. Journal of
439–453. Special Education, 29, 224–233.
Pugach, M. C., & Wesson, C. L. (1995). Teachers’ Shessel, I., & Reiff, H. B. (1999). Experiences off
and students’ views of team teaching of general adults with learning disabilities: Positive and neg-
education and learning-disabled students in two ative impacts and outcomes. Learning Disability
fifth-grade classes. Elementary School Journal, Quarterly, 22, 305–316.
95, 279–295. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social
Putney, L. G., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Kelly, scientists. New York: Cambridge University
G. J. (1999). Evolution of qualitative research Press.
methodology: Looking beyond defense to possi- Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds
bilities. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, to life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
368–377. Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998).
Reid, D. K., & Button, L. J. (1995). Anna’s story: Broken promises: Reading instruction in the re-
Narratives of personal experience about being la- source room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–
beled learning disabled. Journal of Learning Dis- 225.
abilities, 28, 602–614. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The devel-
Reiff, H. B., Gerber, P. J., & Ginsberg, R. (1993). opment of higher psychological processes. Cam-
Definitions of learning disabilities from adults bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
with LD: The insiders’ perspectives. Learning Walther-Thomas, C. S. (1997). Co-teaching experi-
Disability Quarterly, 16, 114–125. ences: The benefits and problems that teachers
Reschly, D. J. (1984). Beyond IQ test bias: The Na- and principals report over time. Journal of
tional Academy Panel’s analysis of minority EMR Learning Disabilities, 30, 395–407.
overrepresentation. Educational Researcher, 13, Zigmond, N. (1995). An exploration of the mean-
15–19. ing and practice of special education in the con-
Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in text of full inclusion of students with learning
secondary schools: Teacher reports of develop- disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 29,
ments in Australian and American classrooms. 109–115.

This page intentionally left blank

Author Index

Aaron, P. G., 39, 83, 84 Albert, M. L., 517
Abbey, H., 257 Albertson, L. R., 331, 332, 335, 387
Abbington, A., 327 Albinger, P., 536, 537
Abbott, R. D., 153, 264, 265, 274, 286, 345, Aldenderfer, M. S., 504, 505
Alegria, J., 218
346, 347, 348, 355, 357, 471, 475, 476, 477 Alexander, A. W., 278, 288
Abbott, S., 345, 346 Alexander, J. E., 187, 192, 193, 194, 279
Abello, B., 144, 274 Alexander, K. L., 232
Aboitiz, F., 26, 245, 517 Alexander, P. A., 328, 385, 386, 388
Abramson, M., 111 Algozzine, B., 84, 418
Achenbach, T., 229 Alksne, J. F., 128
Ackerman, P. T., 199 Allen, S. H., 432
Adams, A., 113 Alley, G. R., 386, 388, 389, 489, 490
Adams, C., 275 Allinder, R. M., 348, 355, 438, 440
Adams, G. L., 403, 404, 407, 409, 415 Allington, R., 298
Adams, K. M., 504 Allsop, D. H., 31, 84
Adams, M. J., 16, 125, 218, 431 Alpert, A., 479
Adams, P. A., 257 Alter, M., 85
Adams, W. V., 129 Ames, L. B., 85
Adelman, H. S., 83 Amos, C. I., 263
Adelman, K. A., 83 Anderberg, M. R., 506
Adelman, P. B., 392 Anderson, A., 518
Affleck, J., 113 Anderson, L. M., 327, 385, 456, 457, 459, 541
Agresti, A., 479 Anderson, L., 99
Ahlgren, A., 364, 365 Anderson, P. L., 18
Ahonen, T., 199, 306 Anderson, V., 96
Aicardi, J., 248 Anderson-Inman, L., 351
Al Otaiba, S., 302, 431, 432, 443 Andrews, J., 392
Alarcón, M., 125, 259 Annegers, J. F., 128
Alberg, J., 418

551

552 Author Index

Anthony, H. M., 327, 457, 541 Barrouillet, P., 199, 204, 208, 209
Antil, L. R., 424, 425, 436 Barsch, R. H., 23, 78, 82
Apel, K., 358 Bartel, N. R., 111
Appelbaum, M. I., 501, 502, 503, 508 Barwick, M. A., 164
Applegate, B., 384 Bateman, B. D., 22, 24, 26, 84
Appleton, A. K., 315 Bates, H., 81
Aram, D. M., 204 Battaglia, J., 201
Arbuckle, J. L., 473 Bauer, R. H., 81
Arcangelo, K., 233 Baumann, J. F., 295
Argulles, M., 119 Baumeister, R. F., 237
Arreaga-Mayer, C., 105 Baumgardner, T. L., 133, 135
Arter, J. A., 78 Baxter, J., 312, 314, 317, 454, 542, 543
Artiles, A. J., 454, 544 Bay, M., 373
Arvey, R., 476 Beals, V. L., 496
Asch, S. E., 307 Bean, T., 294
Ashbaker, M., 186, 189, 190, 194 Bear, G. G., 113, 232, 235, 238
Ashcraft, M. H., 201, 204, 208 Beck, I. L., 224, 294
Asher, S. R., 231, 232 Beckingham, B., 392, 394
Ashman, A. F., 424 Bednar, R. L., 231
Ashton, T., 351, 353 Bednarczyk, A., 331, 385
Asoko, H., 373 Beebe, M. E., 86
Atkins, P., 516 Behan, P., 249, 250, 262
Atkinson, R. C., 368 Behrmann, M., 365
August, D., 97, 103, 106, 107 Belmont, I., 85
Avett, S., 418 Belmont, L., 85
Ayers, R. R., 231 Ben-Dror, I., 516
Aylward, E. H., 135 Benedetti, D. M., 365
Benedetti, D., 365
Backman, J. E., 161, 163, 166 Benke, T., 207
Baddeley, A. D., 182, 183, 184, 188, 194, 216, Benson, N. J., 274, 280
Bentin, S., 173
275 Bentler, P. M., 476, 477, 478, 480
Badian, N. A., 150, 152, 200 Benton, A. L., 129
Baer, D. M., 486, 487, 499 Bentz, J., 441
Bailey, G. D., 419 Bentzen, F. A., 21
Baker, E. T., 113 Berch, D. B., 208
Baker, J. M., 113, 116, 117, 118, 119, 538, 540, Bereiter, C., 323, 324, 326, 342, 351
Berent, I., 216
546 Bergerud, D., 365
Baker, K., 146, 149, 298 Bergman, E., 518
Baker, S., 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 293, Berlin, R., 18
Berliner, D. C., 115
341, 342, 544 Berndt, T. J., 232
Bakken, J. P., 367, 369, 373 Berninger, V. W., 125, 150, 152, 153, 190, 192,
Bakker, D., 516
Bakwin, H., 257 256, 257, 264, 265, 274, 286, 325, 345, 346,
Ball, E. W., 431 347, 348, 349, 350, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358,
Bally, H., 141, 286, 516 433, 471, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478
Bandura, A., 392, 393 Berquin, P. C., 136
Bangert-Drowns, R., 354 Berry, R. A., 460
Barker, C. A., 136 Bertelson, P., 218
Barker, D., 128 Besner, D., 163
Barker, P. B., 128, 136 Bhadha, B., 244
Barnes, M. C., 38 Biddle, K., 45, 46, 142, 145, 150, 222, 279
Barr, R., 274 Biemiller, A., 453
Barrera, R. B., 102 Biklen, D., 82, 532, 535, 537, 540
Barron, R. W., 43, 45, 50, 273, 274, 275, 280
Barron, S., 311

Author Index 553

Biklin, D., 111 Brigham, F. J., 369, 370, 373, 376
Billingsley, F. F., 150, 286, 331, 332, 335, 355, Brito, C., 478
Brittain, M. M., 172
387, 475 Britton, J., 345
Bindman, M., 356 Broadbent, W. H., 18
Birch, J. W., 418 Broca, P. P., 17
Bisgaard, M. L., 262 Brock, C., 454
Bishop, D. V., 275 Brokenleg, M., 231
Blachman, B. A., 141, 218, 222, 225, 431, Brooks, A., 345
Brophy, J., 98, 232, 364, 366
432 Broquist, S., 199, 200
Blake, G., 298 Brown, A. D., 163
Blashfield, R. K., 30, 35, 501, 503, 504, 505, Brown, A. L., 312, 383, 385, 392, 393, 418,

506, 508, 510 422, 454, 455, 456, 541, 544
Blenkinsop, J., 326 Brown, A., 329, 386
Boardman, A. G., 113, 233 Brown, I. S., 145, 275, 432
Bocian, K. M., 85, 86, 191, 366 Brown, J. S., 452
Boden, J. M., 237 Brown, S. C., 199, 203, 208
Boder, E., 501 Browne, M. W., 478
Boersma, F. J., 230 Bruck, M., 81, 163, 164, 166, 275, 277, 514,
Bogdan, R., 532, 535, 537
Bollen, K. A., 476, 477, 478 515, 516, 525
Bonney, G., 260 Bruner, E. C., 280
Bookman, M. O., 249 Bruner, J., 533, 534, 546
Boon, R., 365, 372 Brunswick, N., 518, 522, 524, 525
Boothroyd, M., 544 Bryan, N., 128, 129
Borden, S. L., 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, Bryan, T., 81, 373
Bryant, B. R., 146
285, 286, 287 Bryant, B., 351
Borecki, I. B., 260, 514 Bryant, D., 351
Borenstein, M., 480 Bryant, P. E., 172, 219, 275, 431
Borgh, K., 352 Bryant, P., 81, 218
Borkowski, J. G., 81, 390, 392, 393 Bryk, A. S., 471, 473, 474
Bornstein, J. D., 259 Bryson, S. E., 168, 169, 170
Borstrom, I., 275 Buchele-Ash, A., 484
Bos, C. S., 79, 81, 106, 391, 497, 544, 545 Buckner, R., 524
Bosker, R. J., 471 Buka, S., 43
Bouchard, E., 384, 385 Bulgren, J. A., 487, 488, 489, 491, 492, 493,
Bourassa, D. C., 146, 356, 358
Bowers, J., 441 498
Bowers, P. G., 45, 46, 130, 140, 142, 143, 144, Bull, R., 183, 194, 199, 208, 209
Burd, L., 133
145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 222, 243, Burgess, S., 143
250, 279, 286, 501, 516 Burgy, L., 232
Bow-Thomas, C. C., 199, 208 Burlingham-Dubree, M., 202
Boynton, G., 518 Burnette, C. P., 128
Bracken, B. A., 236, 237 Burns, M. S., 431
Bradley, L., 81, 172, 218, 219, 225, 431 Burns, S. M., 96
Brady, S. A., 172, 218, 221, 223, 275, 515 Bursuck, W., 232
Bragg, R., 346 Bus, A. G., 337, 431
Bransford, J. D., 307, 312 Busse, J., 265
Breckenridge, J. N., 508 Butcher, K., 372
Breier, J., 518 Butler, D. L., 341, 389, 390, 392, 393, 394,
Brendtro, L. K., 231
Brengelman, S., 539 395, 420
Brewer, W. F., 298 Butler, R., 233
Brewster, M. E., 384 Button, L. J., 536, 537
Breznitz, Z., 150, 152 Byng, S., 516
Briars, D., 199, 207

554 Author Index

Byrne, B. M., 231, 477, 478, 479 Childs, A. L., 257
Byrne, B., 171, 173, 431 Childs, B., 257, 514
Chomsky, C., 349
Calfee, R. C., 163 Chomsky, N., 214
Campbell, D. T., 236, 476 Christensen, C., 346, 347
Campbell, S. K., 145 Christie, L., 87
Campbell, T. D., 476 Chung, S., 384
Campione, J. C., 312, 386 Clark, F. L., 489
Cantor, J., 194 Clark-Chiarelli, N., 454
Capps, C., 141 Clay, M., 345
Cardon, L. R., 262 Clements, S. D., 22
Cardoso-Martins, C., 153 Cleveland, W. S., 474
Carey, D. M., 113 Clever, A., 232, 235
Carlberg, C., 112 Clifton, C., 216
Carlisle, J. F., 219, 220, 356 Cochran, K., 185
Carlock, C. J., 229, 230 Cochran, W. G., 479
Carlson, C. D., 46, 149 Cohen, C., 113
Carnine, D., 298, 313, 316, 317, 319, 407, Cohen, D. J., 133
Cohen, E., 422, 423
418 Cohen, J., 480
Carnine, L., 280 Cohen, L., 208
Carpenter, D., 81 Cohen, P., 536
Carpenter, P. A., 190, 216 Cohen, S. A., 79, 310
Carpenter, T. P., 201 Cohn, J. A., 259
Carr, M., 119 Cole, D., 476
Carrier, J. G., 80 Coles, G. S., 80
Carta, J., 422 Collins, A., 452
Carte, E. T., 145 Collins, F. S., 128
Carter, B., 218 Collins, K. M., 365, 397, 460, 541
Carter, K. B., 372 Collins, L. M., 473
Cartwright, A., 347 Collins, R. A., 387, 331
Carullo, J. J., 194 Coltheart, M., 46, 162, 164, 167, 516
Carver, P., 244 Colvert, G., 389
Cary, L., 218 Combs, A. W., 230
Case, L. P., 32, 331, 384, 385, 444, 445, 509, Compton, D. L., 46, 144, 443
Comrey, A. L., 475
510 Cone, T. E., 84
Caskey, B. J., 149 Confrey, J., 458
Caslyn, R. J., 230 Congdon, R., 474
Castellani, C., 259 Conners, F., 251
Castles, A., 46, 258 Conrad, N. J., 147, 148, 152
Casto, G. C., 374, 486 Conrad, R., 216
Caswell, L. J., 303 Conway, A. R. A., 208, 209
Catanzarite, L., 422 Conway, A. R., 190
Catrambone, R., 308 Cook, 476
Cattell, M., 273 Cook, B., 310
Catts, H. W., 81 Cook, L. K., 367
Cawley, J. F., 81 Cook, R. D., 474
Cazden, C. B., 544 Cook, S., 374
Chall, J. S., 403 Cook, T. D., 476
Chambers, S., 162 Cooley, E. J., 231
Chandler, C. L., 169 Cooley, W. W., 99, 115, 116, 117
Chapman, J. W., 229, 230, 231, 233 Cooney, J. B., 81, 182, 195, 196
Chard, D., 97, 457 Cooper, D. H., 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509,
Cheong, Y. F., 474
Chiang, B., 439 511
Chiappe, P., 183, 194

Author Index 555

Cooper, G. A., 307, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, De Francesco, J. J., 229
316, 317, 318 de Jong, P., 183, 194
de Kruif, R. E. L., 125
Cooper, H., 234 De La Paz, S., 325, 326, 327, 331, 333, 334,
Cooper, M. C., 504, 506
Coopersmith, S. A., 234 337, 338, 340, 353, 355, 387, 454, 503
Cope, B., 452 De Liberto, S., 183
Corden, M., 390 De Renzi, E., 161
Corina, D., 518 deCani, J. S., 297
Cormier, P., 199, 201 Decker, S. N., 257
Cornelissen, P., 518 Deemer, S. A., 238
Cornoldi, C., 40, 43, 81, 183 DeFries, J. C., 31, 46, 125, 144, 201, 249, 250,
Cornwall, A., 143
Cosden, M., 229, 232 257, 258, 260, 263, 514
Cottone, E. A., 365 Dehaene, S., 208, 209, 525
Coutinho, M., 86 Dejerine, J., 517, 525
Cowin, E., 223 DeJong, P. F., 142
Crain, S., 224 deKruif, R., 349
Cramer, B. B., 218 Delacato, C. H., 16, 23
Cromer, W., 173 Delquadri, J. C., 375
Cronbach, L. J., 477, 504 Delquardi, J., 422
Cronin, E. M., 229 Demb, J., 518
Cronin, V., 243 Demonet, J. F., 521
Cross, C. T., 40 Dempster, F., 188
Cross, D. R., 383 Denckla, M. B., 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133,
Crowe, F. W., 128
Cruickshank, W. M., 20, 21, 23, 76, 78, 79 134, 136, 140, 141, 145, 149, 150, 222, 243
Cumming, G., 352 Deno, S. L., 112, 113, 437, 439, 440
Cummins, J., 49, 103 Denton, P. H., 389, 489, 496
Cunicelli, E. A., 396 Dereshiwsky, M. I., 81
Cunningham, A. E., 148, 218, 221, 251, 277 Deshler, D. D., 79, 328, 386, 388, 389, 450,
Cunningham, C. E., 232
Curran, P. J., 478 487, 488, 489, 490, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496,
Curtis, B., 516 497, 498
Cutter, J., 365, 397, 460, 541, 542, 543 Deuel, R. K., 81
Cutting, L. E., 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, Deutsch, A., 173
Deutsch, M., 417
133, 134, 149, 150, 243 Dick, J., 204, 320
Dickson, W. P., 352
Da Fontoura, H. A., 165, 172, 173 Dilts, C. V., 128
Dailey, R., 113 DiMario, F. J., Jr., 131
Dalton, G., 345 Dimino, J., 87, 298
Damasio, A. R., 517 Ding, B., 218
Damasio, H., 517 DiPaolo, D. P., 131
Daneman, M., 183, 186, 189, 190, 216 Ditunno, P., 222
Danoff, B., 328, 331, 332, 387 Dixon, C. N., 533
Darch, C., 318, 414, 415, 539 Doctor, E. A., 167
Darlington, D., 389 Doehring, D. G., 37, 45
Das, J. P., 356 Doi, L. M., 143, 244
Datta, H., 258, 264 Dolan, R., 525
Davidson, B. J., 147, 175 Dole, J. A., 293, 392
Davis, C. J., 125, 144 Domgaard, R. M., 149
Davis, C., 222, 225, 432, 433 Donahue, M., 81
Davis, G., 539 Donaldson, S. A., 279
Daw, E. W., 260 Donlan, D., 298
Day, J. D., 386 Donnelly, K., 142, 153, 286, 287
De Beni, R., 183, 194 Donohue, B. C., 518
Donohue, M., 427
Dool, C. B., 40

556 Author Index

Doorlag, D. H., 118 Englert, C. S., 318, 324, 327, 328, 341, 342,
Dorfman, M. H., 298 385, 387, 388, 390, 418, 450, 451, 456, 457,
Doris, J., 77 458, 459, 460, 540, 541, 542, 543, 546, 547
Douglas, V. I., 136
Downer, M. A., 280, 284 Ennemoser, M., 433
Doyle, A. E., 258 Entwisle, D. R., 232
Draguns, J. G., 35, 503 Erdley, C. A., 232
Drenowski, A., 216 Escobar, M. D., 31, 249, 260, 514
Drew, A. L., 259 Espin, C., 113
Dreyer, L., 348 Ettenberger, S., 540
Driver, R., 373 Everitt, B. S., 502, 509
Drum, P. A., 104 Evertson, C., 98
Duara, R., 248 Evett, L. J., 163
Dubes, R. C., 502
Duda, R. O., 506 Fabrigar, L. R., 475, 478
Duffy, G. G., 388, 392 Fagerheim, T., 259, 262
Duke, N. K., 303 Fairman, J., 312
Duncan, S. C., 479 Fan, L., 208
Duncan, T. E., 479 Faraone, S. V., 258
Dunn, G., 502 Farmer, M. E., 150
Dunn, L. M., 111, 112, 258, 260 Farnish, A. M., 118, 421
Dunsmore, K., 451, 458, 459, 460 Fashola, O. S., 104, 105
Durnin, J. H., 307 Faux, D., 165
Durrant, J. E., 86 Fawcett, A. J., 150, 222
Dykman, R. A., 199 Fayol, M., 199
Fazio, B. B., 435
Eaton, S., 316 Feagans, L. V., 79, 502, 503, 508
Eaves, L., 258 Fear, K. L., 456
Ebeling, U., 245 Feeman, D. J., 221
Echevarria, J., 99, 103, 545, 546 Felmingham, K. L., 251
Eden, G. F., 26, 242, 243, 250, 251, 518 Felton, R. H., 40, 141, 144, 145, 275, 286, 287,
Edwards, D., 480
Ehri, L. C., 162, 163, 164, 356, 358, 434 432, 514, 525
Eiberg, H., 262 Feng, L. X., 480
Elaschuk, C. L., 392, 393, 394, 395 Feng, Y., 347
Elbaum, B. E., 113, 229, 232, 233, 234, 316, Ferguson, C., 439
Ferguson, D. L., 537
317, 427 Ferguson, H. B., 161
Elbert, I. C., 249 Ferguson, P. M., 533
Elbro, C., 219, 275 Fernald, G. M., 18, 19
Elder, L., 174 Fernandez, R., 424
El-Dinary, P. B., 454 Fernstrom, P. J., 441
Eldridge, M., 184 Ferretti, R. P., 454, 543
Eliason, M. J., 128 Ferris, H., 160
Eliopulos, D., 242, 245 Ficzere, S. A., 342, 389, 390, 420
Elkins, J., 84 Field, H. S., 507
Elliott, K., 232 Field, L. L., 263
Ellis, A. W., 159, 431, 433 Fielden, C., 353
Ellis, E. S., 237, 389, 392, 394 Fielding-Barnsley, R. F., 431
Elmore, R. F., 485 Fiez, J. A., 518, 525
Elston, R. C., 260 Figueroa, R. A., 544
Emerson, M. J., 186 Filip, D., 81
Engelmann, S., 20, 280, 287, 403, 404, 405, Filipek, P. A., 274, 517, 525
Finch, J. F., 478
407, 408, 415 Fink, B., 325, 347, 348
Engestrom, Y., 450 Finlan, T. G., 81, 84
Engle, R. W., 184, 190, 194, 208 Finlayson, M. A. J., 40, 320

Author Index 557

Finucci, J. M., 257, 259, 260, 514 Friedman, N. P., 186
Firestone, W. A., 312 Friedman, R. F., 517
Fischer, F. W., 171, 217, 218, 515 Friel, J., 170
Fisher, C. W., 115 Frijters, J. C., 45, 46, 145, 277, 278, 279, 280,
Fisher, J. B., 498
Fisher, J. H., 257 281, 282, 286, 288
Fisher, S. E., 263, 514 Friston, K. J., 518
Fisher, S., 257 Frith, C. D., 518
Fitzmaurice, A. M., 81 Frith, U., 166, 172, 175, 518
Flavell, J. H., 392 Frost, J., 431
Fleischner, J. E., 199, 200, 204, 208 Frost, R., 175, 216
Fletcher, J. M., 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, Frostig, M., 23
Fuchs, D., 26, 32, 38, 52, 84, 85, 95, 298, 302,
40, 46, 47, 50, 51, 98, 213, 244, 249, 260,
273, 275, 276, 320, 431, 432, 436, 439, 510, 315, 316, 342, 348, 355, 418, 422, 425, 432,
514, 515, 518, 521 437, 438, 439, 441, 442, 443
Fletcher, M. A., 23 Fuchs, L. S., 26, 32, 38, 52, 85, 95, 96, 293,
Fletcher, T. V., 544 298, 313, 315, 316, 348, 355, 374, 418, 432,
Flower, L. S., 323, 349, 390 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443
Flowers, L., 40, 141 Fulk, B. J. M., 369, 384
Flynn, J. M., 45 Fulker, D. W., 251, 258, 262, 263
Flynn, J., 514 Fuller, F., 347
Foch, T. T., 249, 257 Furman, G. C., 538, 547
Foltz, G., 147, 175 Fuson, K. C., 201
Foltz, P. W., 293
Fontana, J., 374 Gaffney, J. S., 368, 369
Foorman, B. R., 30, 39, 40, 46, 50, 98, 149, Galaburda, A. M., 26, 243, 245, 247, 248, 249,
274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 288, 348, 431, 432,
436, 437 250, 251, 252, 517, 521, 525
Forgan, J. W., 536 Galderisi, D., 81
Forman, E. A., 233, 541 Gall, F. J., 17
Fornarolo, G., 166 Gallagher, J. J., 79
Forness, S. R., 31, 35, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, Gallego, M. A., 450
82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 235, 365, 532, 546 Gallimore, R., 103, 540, 544
Forrest, T., 257 Gallistel, C. R., 207
Forsberg, H., 31, 251, 258, 477 Ganger, S., 295
Forster, K. I., 162, 216 Garmon, M. A., 457
Foss, J. M., 235 Garner, R., 385
Fowler, A. E., 219, 220 Garnett, K., 199, 200, 204, 208
Fowler, C. A., 168, 170, 171, 515 Gartner, A., 111
Fox, B., 218, 434 Gaskins, I. W., 280, 283, 284
Fox, N. E., 113 Gaskins, L., 396
Fox, P. T., 521 Gaskins, R. W., 280, 284
Foy, J. G., 219, 221 Gathercole, S. E., 188, 275
Foyle, H. C., 419 Gayán, J., 31, 144, 258, 263, 264
Frackowiak, R. S. J., 518, 520, 521 Gayther, S. A., 259
Francis, D. J., 35, 36, 39, 40, 46, 50, 98, 149, Geary, D. C., 125, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203,
213, 244, 275, 276, 277, 348, 432, 436, 439,
440, 514, 515 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 306
Frankenberger, W., 26 Gee, J. P., 451
Frase-Blunt, M., 364, 366 Gelman, R., 199, 207
Freedman, D., 508 Gelzheiser, L. M., 84
Freedman, L., 148 George, N., 539
Friede, R. L., 248 Georgiewa, P., 518
Friedman, A., 185 Gerard, J. A., 81
Friedman, J. M., 128 Gerber, M. M., 81, 82, 86, 87, 538
Gerber, P. J., 535
Germann, G., 439

558 Author Index

Gersten, R., 87, 94, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, Greenwood, C. R., 375, 422, 431
106, 107, 293, 298, 318, 341, 342, 414, 415, Gregg, S. L., 324, 327, 457
457, 539, 540, 544, 545, 546 Gresham, F. M., 26, 85, 86, 87, 366
Griffin, D., 478
Geschwind, N., 26, 140, 244, 245, 247, 249, Griffin, J. D., 145
250, 252, 262, 517, 521 Griffin, P., 96, 431
Griffin, S. M., 238
Getman, G. N., 23 Griffith, P., 348
Geva, E., 144, 169, 172, 173, 176 Grigorenko, E. L., 26, 31, 40, 44, 144, 249,
Gick, M. L., 307, 308
Gilger, J. W., 31, 36, 250, 260, 263, 514 262, 273, 274
Gillies, R. M., 424 Grimes, J. P., 31, 34
Gillingham, A., 19 Groen, G. J., 201
Gindis, B., 450, 454 Grogan, M. M., 419
Ginsberg, R., 535 Grolnick, W. S., 232
Ginsburg, H. P., 81, 199, 206, 207, 210 Gross-Glenn, K., 517
Girelli, L., 207 Gross-Tsur, V., 199, 200, 306
Gittelman, R., 273 Grove, J., 265
Givens, A., 365 Gruber, M. B., 232
Glass, A. L., 173 Guba, E., 533, 534, 535, 546
Glass, G. V., 23, 408 Guetzloe, E., 119
Gleser, G. C., 504 Guice, S., 298
Glushko, R. J., 163 Gurney, D., 298
Glymour, C., 478 Guterman, B. R., 536, 537, 546
Goatley, V., 454 Guthrie, J. T., 165, 169, 173, 176, 257
Golden, G. S., 133 Gutierrez, K. D., 453, 454
Golden, J. O., 142 Gutman, D. H., 128
Golden, R. R., 506 Guy, K., 145
Goldgar, D. E., 128, 259
Goldman, S. R., 173, 454 Haager, D., 229, 231, 238
Goldstein, K., 20, 77 Haapa, B., 353
Gonzalez, J. J., 81 Hagarty, G. J., 111
Gonzalez, R., 478 Hagborg, W. J., 231, 232
Good, R. H., 99, 119, 120, 440, 444 Hagman, J. O., 517
Good, T. L., 232 Haight, S. L., 88
Goodglass, H., 221, 222 Haines, L. P., 434
Goodman, G., 287 Haith, M. M., 219, 262
Gordon, A. D., 510 Hakuta, K., 97, 103, 106, 107
Gordon, I. J., 230 Hale, J. B., 373
Gore, J., 518 Halgren, M. R., 23
Goswami, U., 275 Hall, L. K., 149
Gottardo, A., 46, 224 Hall, R. V., 375, 422
Gottlieb, B. M., 85 Hallahan, D. P., 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 78,
Gottlieb, J., 85, 114
Gough, P. B., 159, 164, 165, 348, 356, 357, 516 79, 365
Graham, J. W., 473 Haller, M., 516
Graham, S., 81, 125, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, Hallgren, B., 257, 259, 260
Halpern, D. F., 520
328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 338, Hambleton, R. K., 312
341, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 355, Hamlett, C. L., 307, 311, 313, 315, 316, 317,
356, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390,
392, 393, 422, 454, 456, 457, 541 348, 355, 438, 439, 441
Graves, A., 351 Hammill, D. D., 20, 25, 78, 111, 146, 294
Graves, D., 345 Hamsher, K. D., 129
Grayson, D. A., 258 Hamson, C. O., 199, 200, 203, 204, 207, 208,
Green, J. L., 533
Green, P. A., 153, 262 209
Green, P., 128 Hanich, L. B., 199, 204, 209, 306, 316, 320
Hansen, P. C., 518

Author Index 559

Hanushek, E. A., 277 Ho, C., S-H., 145, 148
Harding, C. J., 78 Hoard, M. K., 199, 200, 203, 204, 207, 208,
Hardwick, N., 45, 279
Hare, V. C., 385 209, 210
Haring, N. G., 22 Hock, M. F., 450, 487, 488
Harrington, S., 119 Hocutt, A. M., 113
Harris, E. L., 128, 129, 133, 134 Hodge, J. P., 298
Harris, K. R., 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, Hoff, K. E., 384
Hoffman-Kipp, P., 454
330, 331, 332, 333, 338, 341, 347, 348, 349, Hofman, K. J., 128, 129, 130
355, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 392, Hogaboam, T. W., 163
393, 422, 454, 457, 540, 541, 546 Hogan, A., 231
Harris, M., 164 Hogan, K., 452, 540
Harry, B., 96, 544 Hohnen, B., 259
Hart, B., 431 Hoien, T., 245
Hart, L. A., 141 Holahan, J. M., 521
Hart, P. E., 506 Holloway, J., 113
Hart, T., 125, 347, 355 Holtzman, W. H., 94
Harter, S., 230, 231, 232, 236 Holubec, E. J., 417
Hasher, L., 183 Holum, A., 452
Haskett, M., 231 Holyoak, K. J., 307, 308
Hasselbring, T. S., 454 Hooper, S. R., 45, 46, 125, 345, 349, 352, 355
Hatcher, P. J., 39, 431, 433, 437 Hopper, C., 232
Hawkins, D. M., 506 Horn, C. C., 146, 151, 171
Hayduk, L., 477 Horner, R. D., 487
Hayes, J. R., 323, 349, 390 Horney, M., 351
Haynes, J., 353, 355 Horton, S. V., 365
Haynes, M., 318 Horwitz, B., 518, 524
Head, H., 17 Hoskyn, M., 38, 39, 87, 97, 283, 293, 365, 375,
Healy, A. F., 216
Heath, A., 258 403, 486
Heath, N. L., 231, 232 Hosley, M., 232
Heath, S. C., 260 Hosp, M., 439
Heaven, R. K., 158, 159 Howard, J. K., 432
Hebert, M., 163 Howe, K. R., 547
Hecht, S. A., 143, 145 Howell, M. J., 171
Heeger, D., 518 Howerter, A., 186
Heimenz, J. R., 246, 247, 250, 251 Hsu, C. C., 161
Helenius, P., 518, 524 Hsu, L., 257, 265, 347
Heller, K. A., 94, 95, 97, 107 Huang, G., 128
Helwig, R., 310 Huang, Y., 245
Henderson, V. W., 521 Hubel, D., 251
Hermann, K., 257 Huberman, A. M., 533, 538, 546
Heshusius, L., 80 Hubner, J. J., 230
Hesser, L. S., 371 Hudson, F., 118
Hewison, J., 273 Huettner, M. I. S., 242, 243, 252
Hiebert, B., 231 Huey, E. B., 273
Hiebert, J., 312 Hughes, C. A., 355, 488
Higgins, E., 350, 353 Hughes, M. T., 119, 316, 538
Hildebrand, D., 355 Hulme, C., 39, 218, 275, 431, 433, 437
Hinchley, J., 274 Hultquist, A. M., 151
Hindin, A., 454, 542 Humphreys, G. W., 163
Hinshaw, S. P., 145 Humphreys, P., 26, 245, 249, 250
Hinshelwood, J., 17, 18, 242, 257, 273 Hung, D. L., 214, 216
Hitch, G. J., 204, 206, 209, 320 Hunter, J. E., 408
Hittmair-Delazer, M., 207 Hunter, M., 231
Hurford, D. P., 436, 437

560 Author Index

Hutchinson, N. L., 384 Jorm, A. F., 161, 223
Huttenlocher, J., 199 Joseph, J., 17, 26, 258
Hynd, C. R., 243 Joshi, R. M., 218
Hynd, G. W., 81, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 249, Jowell, P. S., 259
Juel, C., 164, 165, 276, 345, 348, 431, 432
250, 251 Junkala, J., 81
Junkin, L. J., 232
Iano, R. P., 80 Justin, E. M., 235
Ikeda, M. J., 95 Juvonen, J., 232
Ing, P. S., 262
Ingram, C. P., 85 Kagan, S., 425
Ishaik, G., 142 Kahn, H., 81
Itoh, T., 131 Kahn, T., 245
Kail, R., 149
Jackson, E. F., 128 Kain, J. F., 277
Jackson, G. B., 408 Kalantzis, M., 452
Jackson, M., 216 Kam, C-M., 473
Jacob, E., 533 Kamann, M. P., 391, 394, 395
Jacobs, J. E., 383 Kame’enui, E. J., 407, 415, 418, 444
Jaeger, J., 520 Kamhi, A. G., 81
Jain, A. K., 502 Kaminski, R. A., 99
Jakobson, L. S., 251 Kandel, G., 170
Jakubowski, E., 458 Kane, E. R., 23
Jancke, L., 248 Kane, M. J., 184
Jarin, D. C., 296 Kang, S., 104
Jarvis, P. A., 235 Kansaku, K., 520
Jarvis, S., 392, 394, 395 Kaplan, B. J., 36, 263
Jenkins, J. R., 78, 118, 318, 365, 417, 421, 422, Kaplan, D., 204, 320
Karns, K., 309, 310, 311, 316
423, 427, 432, 436 Karovsky, P., 347, 355
Jenkins, L. M., 118, 417, 421, 422 Kaskowitz, D., 98, 99
Jerman, M. E., 310 Kasten, W. C., 435
Jewell, M., 118, 417, 421 Katz, L., 177
Jiménez, R. T., 98, 102, 103 Katz, R. B., 222
Jitendra, A. K., 384 Katzir-Cohen, T., 278, 286, 287, 288
Johns, M. S., 45, 279 Kauffman, D. W., 133
Johnson, D. J., 24 Kauffman, J., 119
Johnson, D. W., 417, 418, 425, 427 Kaufman, W. E., 245
Johnson, D., 163, 165, 168 Kavale, K. A., 31, 35, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
Johnson, G., 280
Johnson, L., 331, 385 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 112, 235, 365, 532, 546
Johnson, M. B., 146, 149, 515, 521 Keen, A. G., 150
Johnson, M., 277 Keith, L. K., 236
Johnson, N. S., 294 Keith, S., 311
Johnson, R. A., 506 Kelemen, E., 232
Johnson, R. T., 417, 418, 425, 427 Keller, H., 18
Johnston, M. B., 81 Kelley, D. B., 249
Johnston, R. S., 183, 199, 208, 209 Kelly, G. J., 533
Johnston, R., 165, 171, 174 Kemper, T. L., 245, 248, 250, 251
Jones, C. C., 424 Kendler, K. S., 258
Jones, D., 346, 347 Kennedy, A., 142, 144
Jones, W., 389, 456 Kenny, D. A., 230, 236
Jonides, J., 183, 187 Keogh, B. K., 79, 86, 87, 503, 544
Jordan, A., 98, 99 Kephart, N. C., 20, 23, 110
Jordan, L., 31, 84 Kerbeshian, J., 133
Jordan, N. C., 199, 204, 206, 208, 306, 310, Kessler, R., 258

316, 319, 320

Author Index 561

Kibby, M. Y., 242 Lancaster, P., 494
Kidder, H. C., 81 Lander, E., 261
Kieley, C., 351, 353 Landerl, K., 144
Kiesila, P., 518 Langdon, R., 516
Kigar, D. L., 520 Larkin, M. J., 389, 392
Kimberling, W. J., 262, 263 Larsen, J. P., 245, 248
King, A., 311 Larsen, S. C., 20, 25, 78, 146
King, R. A., 133 Larsen, S., 83
Kingsbury, T. B., 243 Lasker, A. G., 136
King-Sears, M. E., 369, 370 Lathulière, E., 199
Kinsbourne, M., 243 Laughlin, J. E., 190
Kirby, J. R., 144, 147 Lave, J., 397, 451
Kirk, S. A., 19, 20, 21, 71, 76, 78, 84, 112, Leach, J., 373
Leahy, R. L., 231
114 Leary, M., 231, 235
Kirk, W. D., 20 Leavey, M., 419
Kirson, D., 219 Leckman, J. F., 133
Kistner, J. A., 231, 235 Lee, C., 182, 186, 192, 193, 194, 196, 403
Kitamura, S., 161 Lee, O., 238
Kitazawa, S., 520 Lefever, D. W., 23
Kleiman, G., 216 Lefly, D. L., 153, 249, 516, 517
Klein, R. M., 150 Lefrancois, G. R., 230
Klenk, L., 541 Lehr, F., 418
Kliegl, R., 147, 175 Lehr, S., 297
Kline, F. M., 493, 496, 498 Lehtinen, L. E., 20, 76, 77
Klingberg, T., 517 Leicester, N., 118, 417, 421, 432
Klinger, J. K., 536, 537, 546 Leigh, J. E., 25
Klingner, J. K., 105, 119, 421, 422, 453, 454 Leinhardt, G., 99, 112, 115, 116, 117
Kloomok, S., 229 LeMay, M., 250, 251
Knopik, V. S., 125, 144 Lennon, D., 106
Knorr, U., 248 Lennox, C., 177
Knox-Quinn, C., 351 Lenz, B. K., 488, 489, 490, 492, 496
Koontz, K. L., 208 Leonard, C., 243
Koretz, D., 311 Leong, C. K., 356
Kosc, L., 81, 200, 306 Lerner, J. W., 16
Koth, C. W., 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134 Lesch, M. F., 216
Kouzekanani, K., 231 Levey, P., 160
Kral, M., 242 Levin, B. E., 279
Krasnegor, N. A., 81 Levin, J. R., 368, 369
Kraut, M. A., 131 Levine, M., 345
Kreil, D. A., 231 Levine, S. C., 199
Kroeber, C. L., 280 Levitsky, W., 26, 244, 249, 252
Kruglyak, L., 261 Levy, B. A., 143, 144, 146, 147, 152, 154, 216,
Kuan, L., 544
Kucan, L., 294 274
Kuperis, S., 342, 389, 390, 420 Levy, B. M., 128
Kuspert, P., 433 Lewin, K., 417
Kussmaul, A., 18 Lewis, R. B., 118, 351, 352, 353
Lewis, V., 184
La Greca, A., 232 Lewitter, F. I., 249, 257, 260
LaBerge, D., 286 Li, A. K. F., 231
LaBuda, M. C., 258 Li, F., 479
Lacerenza, L., 277, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, Li, S., 298
Liang, K. Y., 265
286, 287, 288 Liberman, A. M., 31, 161, 214, 217, 275
Lai, D. N.-C., 145, 148 Liberman, D., 348
Lambros, K. M., 85

562 Author Index

Liberman, I. Y., 31, 47, 81, 159, 161, 168, 169, MacArthur, C. A., 324, 325, 326, 328, 331,
170, 171, 173, 214, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 333, 335, 338, 340, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356,
223, 275, 515 387, 390, 456, 543, 546, 547

Licht, R., 516 MacArthur, C. D., 454
Liddle, P. F., 518 Macaruso, P., 224
Light, J. G., 201 MacCallum, R. C., 475, 478, 479
Lima, S. D., 217 Maccotta, L., 524
Lincoln, Y., 533, 534, 535, 546 MacKay, L., 307
Lindamood, C. H., 163, 278 Mackintosh, N. J., 128
Lindamood, P. C., 163, 278 MacLean, C., 260
Linder, B. A., 171, 320 MacLeod, W. B., 395
Lindgren, S. D., 161 MacMillan, D. L., 31, 85, 86, 87, 366, 501, 503
Lipsey, M. W., 85, 432 Madden, N. A., 118, 418, 419, 421
Lipsitt, L., 43 Maddux, C. D., 81
Lipsky, D. K., 111 Madge, S., 113
Lipson, M. Y., 383 Magiera, K., 113, 119
Little, R. J. A., 473 Magnusen, M., 365, 373
Little, T. D., 199, 201 Magnusson, S. J., 365, 397, 460, 461, 462, 541,
Liu, F., 209
Liu, M. F., 263 542
Livingstone, M. S., 251 Mahone, E. M., 133, 134
Lockhart, P., 136 Mahony, D. L., 217, 219, 224
Loehlin, J. C., 475, 478 Mainzer, K. L., 418
Logan, G., 525 Mainzer, R. W., 418
Logie, R. H., 182, 183 Makuch, R., 31, 260, 514
Lopez-Torres, L., 454 Malone, L. D., 367
Loranger, D., 324 Malouf, D. B., 87, 355, 419
Lorr, M., 502, 506, 510 Mamen, M., 161
Lorsbach, T. C., 224 Mamlin, N., 385, 540, 546
Lorys, A., 242 Mandler, J. M., 294
Lotan, R., 422 Manis, F. R., 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 151,
Lovato, J., 40, 141
Lovegrove, W. J., 150 166, 167, 171, 221, 244
Lovett, M. W., 43, 45, 46, 50, 144, 145, 146, Mann, L., 20, 78
Mann, V. A., 141, 171, 172, 218, 219, 221,
148, 154, 175, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 279,
280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288 222, 223, 224, 275, 385
Lovitt, T. C., 365 Manor, O., 199, 200, 306
Lowenbraun, S., 113 Manset, G., 113
Lowry, E., 418 Mar, M., 479
Lubs, H. A., 262 Marcal, D. C., 231
Lucangeli, D., 81 Marcal, S. D., 231
Lucker, G. W., 161 Mariage, M., 541
Lukatela, G., 519 Mariage, T. V., 385, 451, 457, 458, 459, 460,
Luke, S., 348
Lundberg, I., 245, 431 541, 546
Lunneborg, C., 475 Marinov-Glassman, D., 233
Lupart, J., 392 Mark, L. S., 171, 223, 515
Luria, A. R., 207 Markovchick, K., 427
Lyerla, K. D., 389, 490 Marks, M., 329
Lynn, A., 98 Marks, S. U., 539, 540
Lyon, G. R., 26, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, Markwardt, F. C., Jr., 146, 258, 260
44, 45, 46, 47, 79, 81, 82, 95, 125, 242, 243, Marquard, K., 384
252, 274, 275, 276, 365, 432, 501, 508, Marquis, J. G., 489
510 Marron, M. A., 293
Lysynchuk, L., 144, 274 Marsh, H. W., 229, 230, 231, 233, 236, 237
Marston, D. B., 439, 440, 441
Martin, E. W., 23
Martinussen, R., 145

Author Index 563

Maruyama, G., 113 Melngailis, I., 257
Marx, H., 433 Meltzer, L. J., 79, 345
Mason, L., 332, 333 Menard, M. T., 26
Masterson, J., 358, 516 Mercer, A. R., 31, 84
Mastropieri, M. A., 81, 331, 365, 366, 367, Mercer, C. D., 16, 24, 26, 31, 84, 369, 384
Mercer, C. O., 488
368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, Mercer, J. R., 95
384, 431, 456, 486, 539, 540, 542 Merikle, P. M., 186
Mata-Aguilar, C., 454, 542 Merrell, K. W., 235
Mather, N., 71, 87 Messick, S., 94, 95
Mathes, P. G., 85, 298, 374, 432, 443 Metsala, J., 160, 163, 221
Mattingly, I. G., 161, 214, 217, 275 Meyen, E., 85
Mattson, P. D., 78 Meyer, D. E., 162
Maxwell, L., 439 Meyer, M. M., 286, 287
Maxwell, S., 476 Meyer, M. S., 141, 144
Mayer, D. P., 312, 314, 317 Meyer, M., 40, 141
Mayer, R. E., 104, 105, 307, 383 Miceli, L., 207
Mayringer, H., 46, 144, 149, 152 Michelson, N., 298
Mayrowetz, D., 312 Miettinen, R., 450
Mazzocco, M. M. M., 125, 128 Miles, M., 533, 538, 546
McAuley, E., 206 Miller, G. E., 384
McBride-Chang, C., 144, 222, 223 Miller, J. L., 80
McCann, R., 163 Miller, L., 142, 153, 286, 287
McCarthy, J. J., 20 Miller, P. D., 408
McClearn, G. E., 257 Miller, S. P., 384
McClelland, J. L., 163, 216 Milligan, E. S., 296
McConkie, G. W., 217 Milligan, G. W., 504, 506
McCormick, C., 301 Minden-Cupp, C., 276
McCormick, D. E., 541 Miner, M., 83
McCrory, E., 518 Mink, J., 191
McCroskey, R. L., 81 Minke, K. M., 235, 238
McCutchen, D., 324, 347, 349 Mirkin, P., 439
McDonough, R., 545 Mistretta, J., 540
McGaw, B., 408 Mitchell, K., 311
McGee, R., 40 Miyake, A., 186, 188
McGilly, K., 312 Mizokawa, D., 346
McGrew, K. S., 71 Moats, L. C., 81, 274, 275, 278, 279, 356
McGue, M., 84 Mody, M., 221
McInerney, D. M., 230 Mohr, J., 262
McInerney, V., 230 Moll, L. C., 102, 450
McIntosh, R., 231, 238 Moller, N., 262
McKee, G. W., 23 Molloy, D. E., 328, 387, 445, 541
McKinney, J. D., 79, 113, 501, 503, 507, 511 Monroe, M., 19, 20, 22, 24, 26
McKnight, R. T., 81 Montague, M., 81, 365, 384, 391
McLean, J. F., 106, 204, 206, 209, 320 Montani, T. O., 199, 204, 206, 208, 319
McLoone, B. B., 368, 369 Montgomery, J. W., 125, 349
McMaster, K. N., 422, 425, 443, 444, 445 Montgomery, M. S., 231
McNaughton, D., 355 Moody, S. W., 316, 427, 538
McPhail, J. C., 540, 541, 543 Moore, B. D., 128
Meck, E., 199 Moore, C., 520, 525
Meehl, P. E., 477, 506 Morais, J., 218
Meek, C., 480 Moran, S., 331, 332
Mehta, C. R., 479 Moreno, R., 307
Mehta, P., 39, 276, 432, 436 Morey, L. C., 506, 508
Meichenbaum, D. H., 78, 386, 453 Morgan, A. E., 248
Meier-Hedde, R., 18

564 Author Index

Morgan, S., 432 Novy, D., 348
Morgan, W. P., 18, 273 Nye, C., 79, 81
Morocco, C. C., 454, 542, 543, 546
Morris, D. W., 262 Oakhill, J., 40, 43
Morris, R. D., 30, 35, 36, 37, 45, 47, 141, 146, Oberklaid, F., 345
Obregon, M., 149
147, 209, 286, 287, 288, 501, 503, 507, 508, O’Brien, G., 106
509, 510, 516, 525 O’Connor, R. E., 421, 423, 427, 432, 435
Morrison, C., 369 Odegaard, H., 245
Morrison, F. J., 166 Ofiesh, N., 355
Morrison, G. M., 86 Okolo, C. M., 454, 543
Mortimer, E., 373 Olsen, R., 477
Morton, N., 260, 261 Olson, R. K., 31, 39, 46, 125, 144, 147, 175,
Morvant, M., 539
Moser, J. M., 201 250, 251, 258, 277, 278, 279, 354, 355
Mostofsky, S. H., 135, 136 O’Malley, K. J., 40
Mott, E. A., 542 O’Melia, M. C., 419
Moyer, S. C., 78 Omenn, G. S., 259
Mullen, R., 186 Orton, S. T., 18, 19
Muller, M. W., 506 Osborne, M., 235
Murawski, W. W., 114 Osborne, S. S., 113
Muter, V., 218 O’Shaughnessy, T. E., 182, 188, 196, 436
Muthén, B. O., 479, 480 Ostad, S. A., 199, 200, 201, 204, 208, 209
Muthén, L. K., 480 Ott, J., 261
Myklebust, H. R., 24, 26 Owen, B., 387
Owen, F. W., 257
Nagel, D. R., 493 Owings, M., 355
Nagy, W., 217, 219, 286, 355, 356, 357, 475 Ozonoff, S., 131
Nardi, B. A., 452
Nathan, R. G., 159, 221 Page-Voth, V., 333
Naylor, C. E., 144, 514 Palincsar, A. S., 79, 365, 383, 385, 393, 397,
Neale, M., 258
Necowitz, L. B., 478 418, 422, 454, 455, 456, 460, 461, 462, 540,
Neel, J. V., 128 541, 542, 543, 544, 546, 547
Nelson, R., 365 Palladino, P., 183
Neuhaus, G., 149 Palmini, A., 248
Newby, R. F., 45, 46 Palombo, J., 229, 230, 232, 237, 238
Newby-Clark, E., 147 Papagano, C., 188
Newman, R. S., 383 Papanicolaou, A., 518
Nicolson, R. I., 150, 222 Parecki, A. D., 541
Nie, H., 218 Paris, A. H., 392, 394
Niebuhr, E., 262 Paris, S. G., 383, 392, 394
Nielson, K., 242 Parker, J. G., 231, 232
Nigg, J. T., 145 Parkman, J. M., 201
Niles, J. A., 78 Parrila, R. K., 144
Noble, K., 26 Parry, D. M., 128
Noble, S., 232 Pasquale, F. . L., 169
Nolan, S. M., 389, 490 Passolunghi, M. C., 183, 194
Nolen, S. B., 348, 383 Patel, N. R., 479
Nomanbhoy, D. M., 219, 220 Paulescu, E., 46
Nopola-Hemmi, J., 262 Paulesu, E., 518
Norrie, E., 257 Pazzaglia, F., 183
North, K. N., 128, 129 Pearl, J., 478, 480
Notari-Syverson, A., 435 Pearl, R., 81
Novak, H., 392, 394, 395 Pearson, P. D., 293, 295, 303, 386, 392
Novak, J. M., 229 Peck, C. A., 538, 547
Novey, E. S., 242, 245 Pennington, B. F., 153, 177, 209, 219, 249, 250,
258, 260, 262, 263, 273, 274, 514, 516, 517, 519

Author Index 565

Perfetti, C. A., 163, 216, 218, 277, 293, 294, Rahbar, M., 514
515 Raichle, M. E., 521
Rainbolt, K., 484
Perkins, D. N., 308, 310, 313, 393 Ramnarain, R., 106
Perna, J., 173 Ramsby, G., 131
Perrone, A. E., 307 Ransby, M. J., 45, 194, 279, 280
Perry, C., 516 Raphael, T. E., 327, 385, 454, 456, 457, 459,
Perry, K. E., 251
Perry, N. E., 394, 397 541
Pesenti, M., 208 Räsänen, P., 199, 306
Pesetsky, D., 277 Rashotte, C. A., 140, 141, 143, 145, 244, 275,
Peshkin, A., 532
Petersen, D. K., 275 278, 288, 432
Petersen, S. E., 518, 521, 525 Raskind, M., 350
Peterson, M. E., 431, 434 Raskind, W. H., 256, 257, 262, 264, 265, 347
Peterson, S. R., 231 Rastle, K., 516
Petryshen, T. L., 263 Ratzeburg, F. H., 21
Pfannenstiel, T., 118 Raudenbush, S. W., 471, 473, 474, 480
Pfeiffer, S. L., 144 Rayner, K., 216, 217, 251, 277, 278
Phillips, N. B., 441 Rea, P. J., 113
Phillips, S., 83 Read, C., 218
Piers, E. V., 234, 235, 236 Reader, M. J., 134, 136
Pilato, V. H., 419 Reece, J., 352
Pinel, P., 209 Reed, L., 345
Pious, C., 365 Reese, J. H., 84
Pirozzollo, F. J., 251 Reeve, R., 329
Polansky, N. A., 87 Reger, R., 77
Pollatsek, A., 216, 516 Reid, D. K., 536, 537
Polson, M. V., 185 Reid, M. K., 81
Poole, S., 393, 395 Reid, R., 81
Poplin, M. S., 79, 80, 535, 541, 544, 546 Reiff, H. B., 535, 536, 537, 546
Porpodos, C. D., 166 Reisenberg, R., 349, 350
Powell-Smith, K., 119 Reiss, A. L., 133
Pratt, A. C., 172 Reith, J. V., 479
Preis, S., 248, 250 Renick, M. J., 231, 236
Pressley, M., 293, 301, 329, 385, 386, 388, 393, Reschly, D. J., 31, 32, 34, 50, 52, 544
Reyes, E., 106
452, 540 Reyes, M., 105
Price, C. J., 518, 520, 521, 525 Reynaud, G., 118
Price, L. J., 504 Reynolds, C. R., 84
Prior, M., 516 Riccardi, V. M., 129
Proctor, W. A., 113 Riccio, C. A., 81, 243
Prout, H. T., 231, 232 Rice, D., 539
Pugach, M. C., 97, 534, 536, 538, 545 Richards, T., 125, 349, 350, 356, 479
Pugh, K. R., 521 Richardson, T., 480
Pullen, P., 119 Richman, L. C., 161
Pulvers, K. A., 488 Riddoch, J., 516
Puma, M. J., 424 Rieben, L., 515
Punamaki, R., 450 Rigdon, E. E., 476
Purkey, W. W., 229 Riley, R., 431
Putnam, J., 427 Ring, J., 39, 277, 278
Putney, L. G., 533 Risemberg, R., 323
Risley, T. R., 486
Quilici, J. L., 307 Rivera-Batiz, F. L., 306
Quinzii, C., 259 Rivkin, S. G., 277
Robbins, C., 434
Rabin, M., 262 Robbins, M., 23
Rack, J. P., 171, 177, 251, 258 Robbins, R., 231

566 Author Index

Roberts, P. H., 432, 441, Salonen, O., 518
Roberts, R., 87 Salvia, J. A., 20
Robinson, N., 114 Samaranayake, V. A., 199
Roche, L. A., 230 Samuels, S. J., 286
Rock, D., 424 Sandler, A., 355
Rodríguez-Brown, F. V., 102 Sarason, S. B., 20
Roehler, L. R., 392 Sarle, W. S., 506
Rogan, L., 346 Sasso, G. M., 27
Roit, M., 96 Satlow, E., 396
Rosen, G. D., 26, 245, 247, 517 Satz, P., 30, 35, 37, 43, 170, 501, 503
Rosenberg, M. S., 419 Saults, S. J., 209
Rosenblatt, L. M., 294 Saunders, W., 106
Rosenfeld, R. G., 442 Sawyer, D. L., 262
Rosenthal, R., 407, 408 Sawyer, R. J., 327, 331, 332, 341, 386, 387
Rosner, J., 141 Scanlon, D. M., 26, 31, 39, 40, 97, 276
Ross, B. H., 308, 313 Scarborough, H. S., 149, 275, 277, 514
Roth, E., 433 Scardamalia, M., 323, 324, 326, 342, 351
Roth, F. P., 503 Scarpati, A., 516
Roth, W. M., 451, 452, 458, 460 Schafer, J. L., 473
Rothman, R., 306 Schafer, W., 328, 355
Rothstein, H., 480 Schaffer, H. R., 452
Rourke, B. P., 35, 40, 45, 199, 208, 213, 244, Schaid, D. J., 261
Schatschneider, C., 39, 46, 276, 432, 436
319, 320 Scheibler, D., 506
Rousseau, M. K., 106 Scheines, R., 478, 480
Routh, D. K., 218, 434 Schiller, E. P., 87
Roy, J. A., 183, 209 Schmidt, F. L., 408
Rozendal, M. S., 541 Schmidt, J., 490
Rozmairek, D. J., 539 Schmidt, R., 223
Roznowski, M., 478, 479 Schneider, W., 433
Rubin, D. B., 473 Schoenheimer, J., 223
Ruddy, M. G., 162 Schomer, D., 128
Rudel, R. G., 130, 136, 140, 141, 145, 222, 243 Schuerholz, L. J., 133, 134
Rudsit, J., 365 Schull, W. J., 128
Rueda, R., 450, 454, 544 Schulte, A. C., 113
Rueffer, K. A., 151 Schulte-Körne, G., 262, 263
Ruiz, N. T., 544, 545, 546 Schumaker, J. B., 386, 388, 389, 450, 483, 487,
Rumsey, J. M., 243, 518, 521, 524
Russell, G., 218 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496,
Russell, R. L., 199, 206, 207, 210 497, 498
Rutberg, J., 125, 346 Schumm, J. S., 238, 422, 427, 454, 536, 538
Rutherford, F. J., 364, 365 Schunk, D. H., 392
Rutter, M., 84, 213 Schuster, B., 144
Ryan, E. B., 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, Schvanevelt, R. W., 162
Schwartz, D. L., 307, 312
171, 172, 173, 183, 194, 206, 320 Schwartz, S., 324, 325, 326, 328, 333, 335,
Ryan, R. M., 232 338, 355, 356, 387, 390, 456, 541
Scott, P., 373
Sachse-Lee, C., 186, 192, 193, 194, 196 Scribner, S., 456
Saddler, B., 331, 332 Scruggs, T. E., 81, 84, 85, 331, 364, 365, 366,
Said, S. M., 128 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375,
Sailer, U., 207 376, 384, 431, 456, 486, 539, 540, 542
Saint-Laurent, L., 113 Seale, T. W., 249
Salas, E., 476 Searl, S. J., Jr., 537
Sale, P., 113 Seergobin, K., 163
Salmelin, R., 518, 521, 524 Seidenberg, M. S., 143, 163, 166, 277
Salomon, G., 308, 310, 313, 393

Author Index 567

Seidman, L., 43 Siegler, R. S., 199, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208
Seifert, M., 165, 169 Silbert, J., 407, 418
Semenza, C., 207 Silva, P. A., 40
Semmel, M. I., 113, 114 Simmons, D. C., 298, 432, 444
Semrud-Clikeman, M., 145, 242, 243, 245, 249, Simon, D. P., 141
Simos, P. G., 288, 518, 525
250, 251 Simpson, G. B., 224
Senchaudhuri, P., 479 Sindelar, P. T., 112, 369
Senf, G. M., 83 Singer, H. S., 133, 135, 136, 298
Sereno, S. C., 216 Singer, S. M., 249, 257
Sergent, J., 518 Singson, M., 219, 220, 224
Seron, X., 207, 208 Siperstein, G. N., 31, 85, 86
Service, E., 518 Skinner, H. A., 35, 502, 504, 506, 508, 510
Sessions, L., 277 Slavin, R. E., 118, 403, 418, 419, 420, 421, 425
Sexton, M., 387 Sleeter, C. E., 80
Sexton, R. J., 329, 330, 333 Slocum, T. A., 432
Seymour, P. H. K., 166, 174 Slopis, J. M., 128
Shadish, W. R., 476 Slowiaczek, M. L., 216
Shafer, W., 387 Smart, L., 237
Shafrir, U., 164, 177 Smiley, S. S., 169, 171
Shalev, R. S., 199, 200, 201, 306 Smith, D., 355
Shanahan, T., 274 Smith, E. E., 183, 187
Shankweiler, D., 31, 81, 159, 161, 168, 169, Smith, M. L., 84, 408
Smith, S. D., 125, 249, 259, 262, 263, 514
170, 171, 213, 214, 217, 218, 220, 221, 223, Smith, S. T., 223, 224
224, 275, 515 Snider, V. E., 436
Shannahan, T., 432 Snijders, T. A. B., 471
Shapiro, S., 231 Snow, C. E., 431
Sharan, S., 425 Snow, C. S., 96, 98
Share, D. L., 31, 40, 176, 278, 515, 516 Snowling, M. J., 81, 163, 165, 166, 172, 175,
Sharp, R., 80
Shavelson, R. J., 230 176, 218, 275
Shaw, R., 81 Snyder, A. Z., 521
Shaywitz, B. A., 31, 35, 40, 50, 125, 129, 213, So, D., 172, 173
243, 244, 249, 252, 260, 275, 514, 518, 521, Speece, D. L., 32, 79, 86, 444, 445, 501, 503,
527
Shaywitz, S. E., 31, 35, 40, 50, 125, 129, 213, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511
243, 244, 249, 252, 260, 275, 514, 515, 516, Spelke, E., 209
518, 520, 521, 522, 523, 525, 527 Spencer, V., 374
Shea, P., 171 Spencer-Rowe, J., 231
Sheldon, J., 389, 490, 498 Sperl, C. T., 385
Shepard, L. A., 84, 85 Spira, D., 439
Shepherd, M., 434 Spirtes, P., 478, 480
Sherman, G. F., 26, 245, 247, 517 Spivey, N., 456
Shessel, I., 536, 537, 546 Sprague, D., 365
Shiah, S., 384 Spreen, O., 43, 129
Shinn, M. R., 95, 119, 439, 440 Sprenger-Charolles, L., 165, 174
Shipley, B., 480 Spring, C., 141
Short, D. J., 99 Spurzheim, J. C., 17
Short, E. J., 79 Stage, S., 355
Shotter, J., 451 Stahl, S. A., 408
Shrager, J., 199, 201, 203, 208 Stallings, J., 98, 99, 115
Shue, K. L., 136 Stanescu, R., 209
Siegel, L. S., 19, 46, 83, 85, 158, 159, 160, 161, Stanovich, K. E., 31, 46, 47, 60, 81, 85, 86,
163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174,
176, 177, 183, 187, 188, 192, 194, 196, 206, 148, 159, 161, 162, 192, 194, 213, 218, 221,
224, 243, 244, 252, 275, 320, 435, 515, 516 222, 224, 243, 244, 251, 275, 277, 431, 515,
516

568 Author Index

Stanovich, P. J., 98, 99 Swanson, P., 325
Stanton, G. C., 230 Swartz, C. W., 125, 349
Staver, J. R., 373 Sweda, J., 370
Stecher, B., 311 Sweller, J., 307, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316,
Stecker, P. M., 438, 441
Steen, R. G., 128 317, 318
Steffy, R., 141, 142 Syer, K., 395
Steger, B. M., 78 Sylvester, L., 348
Steger, J. A., 170 Szeszulski, P. A., 171
Stein, J. F., 150, 251, 516
Stein, M., 407 Taft, M., 216
Steinbach, K. A., 45, 46, 145, 278, 279, 280, Tal, N. F., 158
Talbott, E., 374
281, 288 Talcott, J., 516
Steinhauser, R., 176 Tallal, P., 516
Steinmetz, H., 245, 246, 248 Tam, B. K. Y., 106
Stelmack, R. M., 40 Tanhouser, S., 331, 387
Stephenson, S., 257 Tannhauser, M. T., 21
Sternberg, R. J., 365 Tannock, R., 145
Stevens, D. D., 459, 541 Tarkiainen, A., 518
Stevens, L. J., 77 Tate, E., 142
Stevens, R. J., 118, 418, 421 Tateyama-Sniezek, K. M., 418
Stevenson, H. W., 161 Taylor, H. G., 51, 170
Stevenson, J., 259, 514 Taylor, J., 229
Stewart, N., 501, 508 Taylor, M. B., 295, 296
Stigler, J. W., 161, 312 Taylor, S. J., 532, 535, 537
Stillman, B. W., 19 Taylor, S., 218
Stine, S. B., 129 Temple, C. M., 174, 207, 242, 243
Stoddard, B., 335, 338, 340 Temple, E., 518, 525
Stolz, L. M., 257 ten Krooden, J. A., 506
Stone, C. A., 81, 393, 452, 454 Terwilliger, J. D., 261
Stone, G. O., 519 Tharp, R. G., 103, 540, 544
Stone, L. D., 453, 454 Thomas, C. J., 257
Stone, W., 232 Thomas, C., 324
Stover, G., 310 Thomas, M., 83
Strahan, E. J., 475 Thompson, A., 431, 432, 438, 443
Strauss, A. A., 20, 21, 76, 77, 78, 533, 534, Thompson, L. J., 83
Thomson, G., 261
538, 546 Thomson, J. B., 257, 264, 265, 347
Strycker, L. A., 479 Thousand, J. S., 418
Studdert-Kennedy, M., 221 Tikunoff, W. J., 99
Stuebing, K. K., 31, 38, 39, 40, 50, 275, 514 Tilly, W. D., 31, 32, 34
Stumpf, D. A., 128 Tindal, G., 439
Sugawara, H. M., 478 Tivnan, T., 345
Sullivan, G. S., 365, 370, 371, 373 Tobin, K., 452
Sullivan, H. G., 243 Toma, C., 458
Summers, E. G., 81 Tomblin, J. B., 38
Sunseth, K., 142, 146, 147, 148, 151 Torgesen, J. K., 26, 32, 39, 52, 78, 81, 140, 141,
Svenson, O., 199, 200, 201
Swank, P. R., 40 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 218, 222, 225, 244,
Swann, W. B., 229 275, 276, 277, 278, 288, 432, 433, 437, 443,
Swanson, H. L., 38, 39, 79, 81, 87, 97, 114, 501, 510, 515
Toulmin, S., 451
125, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, Trabasso, T., 384, 385
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 206, 279, Trahan, M., 79
283, 293, 347, 349, 365, 375, 403, 436, 456, Treiman, R., 356, 358
486 Trent, S. C., 454, 544
Swanson, L. B., 141, 142, 143, 148

Author Index 569

Treuting, J. J., 145 Vygotsky, L. S., 417, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454,
Troia, G. A., 328, 33, 457 540
Troutner, N., 118, 417, 421
Tsivkin, S., 209 Wadsworth, S. J., 125, 144, 250, 251, 258, 264,
Tucker, J., 77 514
Tufte, E. R., 474
Tuholski, S. W., 184, 190 Wagner, R. K., 26, 81, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,
Tunmer, W. E., 159, 516 145, 153, 218, 244, 275, 432, 515
Turnbull, A. P., 484
Turnbull, H. R., 484 Wainer, H., 474
Turvey, M. T., 519 Wakely, M. B., 125, 349
Twilley, L., 163 Walberg, H. J., 113
Tyler, A., 217, 219, 356, 357 Waldren, N. L., 113
Tzeng, O. J. L., 214, 216 Walker, D., 431
Wallach, L., 172
Uchino, B. N., 478 Wallach, M., 172
Uhry, J. K., 434 Waller, G., 175
Utay, C., 420 Walley, A. C., 219, 221
Utay, J., 420 Walquis, A., 104
Uutela, K., 518 Walsh, V., 516
Walther-Thomas, C. S., 113, 539
Vadasy, P. F., 424, 425, 436 Walz, L., 439
Van Bockern, S., 231 Wang, M. C., 113, 118, 418
Van Daal, V. H. P., 151 Wang, P. Y., 128, 131
Van den Bos, K. P., 144 Wang, W., 216
Van Der Linden, M., 208 Warner, M. M., 386, 389, 489, 490
van Dijk, T. A., 295 Warren-Chaplin, P. M., 279
van IJzendoorn, M., 337 Wassenberg, K., 170
Van Meter, J. W., 243 Waters, G. S., 163, 166
Van Orden, G. C., 216, 219, 249, 519 Watt, W. C., 214
Van Reusen, A. K., 497 Wayne, S. K., 424, 425, 436
Van Reusen, T., 497 Webber, L. S., 312
van Strien, J., 516 Weber, B. A., 259
VandeKamp, K. J. O., 397 Weber, R., 168
Vandervelden, M. C., 164, 435 Wechsler, D. I., 63, 71, 143, 258, 264, 521
Varney, N. R., 129 Ween, J. E., 517
Varnhagen, C., 356 Wegener, D. T., 478
Varnhagen, S., 356 Weiner, B., 392
Vaughan, K., 345 Weintraub, N., 346
Vaughn, M., 248 Weisner, T., 544
Vaughn, S., 79, 81, 105, 113, 119, 229, 231, Wells, G., 451, 452, 453, 457, 458, 459
Wells, M. G., 231
232, 233, 234, 237, 238, 316, 421, 422, 453, Welsh, M. C., 209
454, 457, 460, 464, 536, 538 Wenger, E., 397, 451, 459
Veit, D. T., 369 Wentzel, K. R., 232
Vellutino, F. R., 26, 31, 39, 40, 78, 81, 170, Werker, J. F., 168, 169, 170, 171
244, 276, 277, 432 Werner, H., 20, 21, 76, 77, 78
Venezky, R. L., 163, 165, 168, 356 Wernicke, C., 17, 18
Vernon, D. S., 494, 495, 496, 497 Wertsch, J. V., 451, 452, 457, 458
Villa, R. A., 418 Weschler, D., 129
Vise, M., 433 Wesson, C. L., 536
Voelker, S., 232 West, J., 297
Vogel, S. A., 392 West, S. G., 478
Vogt, M., 99 Wharton-McDonald, R., 540
Vojir, C. P., 84 Whedon, C., 369
Voorhuis, J., 543 Whitaker, D., 346, 347, 348
White, K., 231