SamCurt
07-15-10, 01:22 AM
I'm summarizing the paper A Practice-Based Approach to Group Identification in Nonverbal Learning Disorders (http://www.informaworld.com.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09297041003631444) (subscription needed)
Apparently, people with Nonverbal Learning Disorder has too much internal diversity in their disabilities, and even the usual VIQ>PIQ measure didn't seemed to be too predictive. "[W]e believe that we lack a basic agreement about the nature of the problem that we need to investigate."
The authors mainly grouped people with NLD into 3 subtypes:
The Processing Efficiency Group (PROC-EFF), who "problems synchronizing the necessary elements (visual and verbal) to process (input) and produce (output) at an appropriate cognitive rate or tempo." The writers later refer to this as "wading in molasses" and mentioned that it may sound like ADD-Inattentive or Sluggish Mental Tempo; the difference being in this kind of NLD the attention deficit is not universal.
The Concept Integration Group (CONC-INT), which is "due to underlying deficits in the integration of concepts; they are unable to weave together elements to create a “whole” mental representation." In my opinion, this is pretty AS-sounding, especially the writer's portray of such a patient is probably also AS.
The Social Adaptation Group (SOC-ADAP), which "characterized in terms of the most salient impact of their linear style in the everyday world. This style limits online processing of the multiple, rapidly changing cues that are necessary for effective social functioning. Its most dramatic manifestation is thus in social adaptation."
The writer enrolled 435 children with NLD for analysis. The three groups, in order, were in the 27:47:27 ratio. ADHD was overrepresented in neither group.
In general terms of function, the investigators found that the CONC-INT group has lower functioning than the other groups. The difference i functioning between PROC-EFF and SOC-ADAP groups are not significant.
The writers thought the PROC-EFF group are slow verbal processors, but data rejected that hypothesis.
On the COMP-INT group, the results also rejected the writers' expectation of them "[having] significantly greater deficits in spatial processing functions, specifically perceptual reasoning and spatial organization," when appropriate testing results are adjusted for their lower Functional IQ.
As for the SOC-ADAP group, they did found some issues, they did get more anxious in front of teachers and parents compared to the other two groups.
Their conclusions:
Current processing speed measures seemed to missed out the "wading in molasses" issue;
FIQ seemed to be predictive of the COMP-INT subtype;
While the SOC-ADAP subtype have social adaptations that are easily observd, they are not easy to be tested.
NLD should be subtyped, but work should be done on how to subtype.
Apparently, people with Nonverbal Learning Disorder has too much internal diversity in their disabilities, and even the usual VIQ>PIQ measure didn't seemed to be too predictive. "[W]e believe that we lack a basic agreement about the nature of the problem that we need to investigate."
The authors mainly grouped people with NLD into 3 subtypes:
The Processing Efficiency Group (PROC-EFF), who "problems synchronizing the necessary elements (visual and verbal) to process (input) and produce (output) at an appropriate cognitive rate or tempo." The writers later refer to this as "wading in molasses" and mentioned that it may sound like ADD-Inattentive or Sluggish Mental Tempo; the difference being in this kind of NLD the attention deficit is not universal.
The Concept Integration Group (CONC-INT), which is "due to underlying deficits in the integration of concepts; they are unable to weave together elements to create a “whole” mental representation." In my opinion, this is pretty AS-sounding, especially the writer's portray of such a patient is probably also AS.
The Social Adaptation Group (SOC-ADAP), which "characterized in terms of the most salient impact of their linear style in the everyday world. This style limits online processing of the multiple, rapidly changing cues that are necessary for effective social functioning. Its most dramatic manifestation is thus in social adaptation."
The writer enrolled 435 children with NLD for analysis. The three groups, in order, were in the 27:47:27 ratio. ADHD was overrepresented in neither group.
In general terms of function, the investigators found that the CONC-INT group has lower functioning than the other groups. The difference i functioning between PROC-EFF and SOC-ADAP groups are not significant.
The writers thought the PROC-EFF group are slow verbal processors, but data rejected that hypothesis.
On the COMP-INT group, the results also rejected the writers' expectation of them "[having] significantly greater deficits in spatial processing functions, specifically perceptual reasoning and spatial organization," when appropriate testing results are adjusted for their lower Functional IQ.
As for the SOC-ADAP group, they did found some issues, they did get more anxious in front of teachers and parents compared to the other two groups.
Their conclusions:
Current processing speed measures seemed to missed out the "wading in molasses" issue;
FIQ seemed to be predictive of the COMP-INT subtype;
While the SOC-ADAP subtype have social adaptations that are easily observd, they are not easy to be tested.
NLD should be subtyped, but work should be done on how to subtype.