Running head: SCHOLARLY ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Jennifer P. McCord
Scholarly Article Critique
Grand Canyon University
Scholarly Article Critique
The problem as stated appeared to be of profound significance for determining how to best benefit children with cleft type who have a learning disability in reading. While this may be true, the study resonates that there are signs of inconclusiveness. To specifically address shortcomings to the study, however, the stated problem was not clearly visible to an average reader. The article required several readings to establish the direction the researchers were going with the study. As well as, why the researchers felt this study needed to be done. Undoubtedly, it was limited to the researchers’ capabilities and available resources. This study compared the responses of children with cleft lip and palate to children with cleft palate only who were evaluated using the same set of neuropsychological assessment variables on the basis of the specific type of reading ability being experienced. It has previously been shown that children with cleft lip and palate are more likely to display only a variable expressive deficit, while children with a cleft of the palate only were found to have a higher frequency of underlying symbolic language deficit in addition to verbal expressive problems (Richman, 1980). Previous studies have demonstrated that the ability to segment words into phonetic units (phonic segmentation) is often deficient in children who are reading disabled (Shankweiler and Leiberman, 1976). The concise and well stated purpose of this study clearly agreed with the title of the article. In as much as it was necessary to read and reread the article several times, finally the point of the study was understandable. Moreover, the purpose did agree with the title and should have had a significant impact on educating children with language deficiencies. Objectively, the purpose of the study was twofold. The authors stated that the purpose of the study was to compare children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) to children with cleft palate (CP) only on cognitive, neuropsychological variables, and intelligence in order to assess the possible differential relationship to specific skill areas to their possible reading problems. In addition, the purpose sought primarily to determine if the learning disability children with cleft had in reading was more closely connected to peripheral speech problems or to symbolic language problems by administering a series of test to them. Consequently, the authors included two hypotheses which were constructed to help in achieving the objectives of the study. The first hypothesis was that children with only phonetic word errors will have very few other cognitive disabilities and their errors may be related to peripheral speech problems only. The second hypothesis was that the reading problems of the children who have either sight word errors or reading comprehension problems may be directly related to neuropsychological and or other language deficiencies. These hypotheses were testable and served to help clearly define the problem. Importantly, the author stated that the study was deemed necessary because previous studies revealed that high incidence of significant reading problems had been demonstrated in relatively high proportions among children with cleft. Equally important, the authors stated further investigation of the neuropsychological correlates with reading disability in children with cleft appears warranted in order to further delineate the relationship of peripheral speech versus symbolic language to the reading process in these children. As part of the University of Iowa Cleft Palate Research Program, psychologist administered pre-screening assessments to each potential subject used in the study. The Cleft Palate Research Program routinely checked and screened elementary age children for learning disabilities in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document