Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.4074/S0003503314004072 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.4074/S0003503314004072 C4414263!4414263 !25937640     free     free     free Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\25937640 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       Annee+Psychol 2014 ; 114 (4 ): 753-777 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=25937640 |t=2014. Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders |pdf=|usr=}}{{25937640 }} gab.com Text Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders JO: Annee Psychol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25937640 #FOAvip Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits. Twit Text FOAVip Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders ????Annee Psychol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25937640 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25937640 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|25937640 }}</ref> Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders #MMPMID25937640 Keenan JM ; Hua AN ; Meenan CE ; Pennington BF ; Willcutt E ; Olson RK Annee Psychol 2014[Dec]; 114 (4 ): 753-777 PMID25937640 show ga Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits. äIssues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing