WISC-IV Intellectual Profiles in Italian Children With Specific Learning Disorder and Related Impairments in Reading,Written Expression,and Mathematics

Abstract

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders grouped specific learning disabilities in the single diagnostic category of specific learning disorder (SLD), with specifiers for impairments in reading, written expression, and mathematics. This study aimed at investigating the intellectual profile, assessed with the fourth edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV), of 172 children with a diagnosis of SLD, compared to 74 clinical referral controls. WISC-IV intellectual functioning in children with SLD was characterized by a significant discrepancy between general ability and cognitive proficiency (General Ability Index [GAI] > Cognitive Proficiency Index [CPI]), and worse performances on the Similarities, Digit Span, Letter–Number Sequencing, and Coding subtests, supporting models of multiple cognitive deficits at the basis of neurodevelopmental disorders as SLD. GAI was the best and more conservative measure provided by the WISC-IV to identify intellectual functioning in children with SLD, and the intellectual discrepancy between GAI and CPI could be considered a “cognitive sign” for the presence of SLD in a single diagnostic category. Cognitive deficits differed in subtypes of impairment (reading, written expression, and mathematics), supporting their distinction for empirical, educational, and rehabilitative purposes. These findings need further replication in larger samples and in comparison to typically developing children.

Keywords

WISC-IV specific learning disorder intellectual abilities impairment in reading impairment in written expression impairment in mathematics

In the recent fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), specific learning disabilities were included in the single, overarching diagnostic category of specific learning disorder (SLD), incorporating deficits that affect academic achievement. The DSM-5 Working Group on Neurodevelopmental Disorders reached this decision considering that specific learning disabilities share many features regarding genetic risk, environmental risk factors, developmental features, comorbidity, and cognitive weaknesses (Tannock, 2013), in particular of working memory and processing speed (e.g., De Weerdt, Desoete, & Roeyers, 2013; Peng, Conqying, Beilei, & Sha, 2012; Schuchardt, Maehler, & Hasselhorn, 2008; Wilcutt et al., 2010; Wilcutt et al., 2013). Although included in the same diagnosis of SLD (DSM-5 Code 315), subtypes of impairment can still be described, including impairment in reading (Code 315.00), impairment in mathematics (Code 315.1), and impairment in written expression (Code 315.2).

The evaluation of intellectual abilities with standardized intelligence tests is a necessary step during the diagnostic process of SLD, to exclude the presence of intellectual disability and to identify individual cognitive strengths and weaknesses. The fourth edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003a) is one of the most used tests for the assessment of intellectual abilities in children (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2009; Prifitera, Saklofske, & Weiss, 2008; Weiss, Saklofske, Prifitera, & Holdnack, 2006).

Studies on WISC Profiles

A large number of studies have explored the usefulness of WISC (including WISC-I, WISC-R, WISC-III, WISC-IV) in identifying specific intellectual profiles in children with learning disabilities (hereafter SLD), briefly overviewed regarding most discussed profiles.

A first attempt on the first WISC version was provided by Bannatyne (1968), who categorized the WISC subtest scores grouping them into three categories: spatial (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), conceptual (Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension), and sequential (Digit Span, Picture Arrangement, and Coding). Bannatyne (1971) reported that children with impairment in reading had their highest scores in the spatial category, intermediate scores in the conceptual category, and lowest scores in the sequential category (spatial > conceptual > sequential), a pattern partially confirmed by a subsequent review of WISC studies (Rugel, 1974). Therefore, Bannatyne (1974) revised the subtest categorization distinguishing spatial (Block Design, Object Assembly, and Picture Completion), conceptual (Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension), and sequential (Digit Span, Arithmetic, and Coding) categories. The revised Bannatyne pattern was found to be more present in children with learning disabilities both for WISC-R (Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, & Davis, 1977; Vance & Singer, 1979) and WISC-III (Prifitera & Dersh, 1993), but subsequent studies showed that this pattern was not useful in discriminating between children with learning disabilities and typically developing children (e.g., D’Angiulli & Siegel, 2003; Kavale & Forness, 1984; Smith & Watkins, 2004; Watkins, 2000).

Another approach, attempted by Kaufman (1975), proposed the Freedom of Distractibility Factor (Arithmetic, Coding, Digit Span), derived from the WISC-R factor analysis, as a weak cognitive characteristic of children with developmental disabilities, including children with learning disabilities. This hypothesis was not subsequently confirmed, as this factor unable to distinguish between children with learning disabilities and typically developing children (Kavale & Forness, 1984; McDermott, Fantuzzo, & Glutting, 1990). Then the ACID (deficits in Arithmetic, Coding, Information, and Digit Span) and the SCAD (deficits in Symbol Search, Coding, Arithmetic, and Digit Span) profiles were proposed as signs of learning disabilities, especially of impairment in reading (Kaufman, 1981, 1994), but subsequent studies showed that also these profiles are not specific and do not efficiently distinguish between children with and without impairment in reading (Moura, Simoes, & Pereira, 2014; Thomson, 2003; Watkins, Kush, & Glutting, 1997a, 1997b).

Overall, these studies showed that specific WISC profiles, including Bannatyne’s pattern, Freedom of Distractibility, ACID, and SCAD, may have higher prevalence in SLD children in comparison with typically children, but their use for diagnostic purpose is not empirically supported, being unable to clearly distinguish between clinical and healthy populations. Furthermore, the cognitive heterogeneity of children with SLD suggested that the investigation of their intellectual profiles is probably more useful for a better comprehension of underlying cognitive deficits rather than for diagnostic purposes (Flanagan, Alfonso, Mascolo, & Hale, 2010; Flanagan, Alfonso, Mascolo, & Sotelo-Dynega, 2012; Flanagan & Kaufman, 2009; C. R. Hale, Casey, & Ricciardi, 2014; Morris et al., 1998; Pennington, 2009; Prifitera et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2006).

Searching for Cognitive Deficits

An example of this shift of perspective may be provided by the analysis of WISC-IV performances in children with SLD. The WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003a), supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, distinguished measures of crystallized intelligence (the Verbal Comprehension Index), fluid intelligence (the Perceptual Reasoning Index), working memory, and processing speed. In the study accompanying the publication of WISC-IV, Wechsler (2003b) reported that children with SLD showed more difficulties in subtests related to working memory and processing speed,

Another study (Wilcutt et al., 2013) examined the comorbidity between impairment in reading and impairment in mathematics with a cognitive assessment including some WISC subtests. Authors found both common and distinct cognitive deficits at the basis of these impairments: The common cognitive deficit included weaknesses in verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing speed, whereas distinct cognitive deficits included weaknesses in phoneme awareness and naming speed (associated only with impairment in reading) and weaknesses in set shifting (associated only with impairment in mathematics). Moreover, children with both of these impairments, in comparison with children with isolated impairments, showed more difficulties in global, academic, and cognitive functioning.

Findings of these studies are in agreement with models of multiple cognitive deficits at the basis of neurodevelopmental disorders in general and of SLD in particular (McGrath et al., 2011; Pennington, 2006) and clarify how the WISC-IV, alone or in addition to other cognitive tasks, may help researchers and clinicians in their identification.

Aim of the Study

This study aimed at investigating the intellectual profile associated with the diagnosis of SLD and with related impairments in reading, mathematics, and written expression, using the WISC-IV, recently standardized in the Italian population (Orsini, Pezzuti, & Picone, 2012a). On the basis of the empirical literature, predictions can be formulated regarding the following:

The presence of deficits in working memory and processing speed in children with SLD, leading to a pattern of General Ability Index > Cognitive Proficiency Index (fully described in the method section)

The presence of different WISC-IV profiles regarding impairment in reading, impairment in mathematics, and impairment in written expression

Methods

Participants

A total of 246 participants were enrolled for this study: 172 children with a diagnosis of SLD (110 males and 62 females; mean age 10.72 ± 2.78 years; mean grade 5.59 ± 2.66) and 74 children considered as clinical referral controls (CRC; 46 males and 28 females; mean age 10.54 ± 2.41 years; mean grade 5.45 ± 2.47). Participants were enrolled among children referred for neuropsychological assessment due to persistent academic difficulties and assessed at the Clinic for Learning Difficulties, Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatric Unit of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Children were consecutively recruited for 2 years from August 2012 to August 2014. Written consent to collect data for empirical purpose was signed by parents.

Empirical data for this study were collected during routine clinical assessment for diagnostic purpose. All recruited participants underwent a neuropsychiatric screening and a neuropsychological assessment focused on learning proficiency, according to usual diagnostic procedures; moreover, all participants underwent an assessment with the WISC-IV (Orsini et al., 2012a) and a battery of tasks assessing learning proficiency.

Materials

WISC-IV

The WISC-IV Italian version (Orsini et al., 2012a) has been recently standardized with 2,200 participants (1,100 males and 1,100 females), confirming its four-factor structure (Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, Processing Speed; Orsini, Pezzuti, & Picone, 2012b), in agreement with the American standardization (Wechsler, 2003b).

The administration of the 10 WISC-IV core subtests permits calculation of 4 indexes (VCI: Verbal Comprehension Index, based on the Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension subtests; PRI: Perceptual Reasoning Index, based on the Block Design, Picture Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning subtests; WMI: Working Memory Index, based on the Digit Span and Letter–Number Sequencing subtests; PSI: Processing Speed Index, based on the Coding and Symbol Search subtests) and the Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ). According to WISC-IV manual, these indexes are interpretable if the difference between respective subtests is 4 or less and the FSIQ is interpretable if the difference between the highest index and the lowest index (between VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI) is 22 or less.

Subtests of VCI and PRI permit calculation of the General Ability Index (GAI), which is interpretable if the difference between VCI and PRI is 22 or less, and subtests of WMI and PSI permit calculation of the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), which is interpretable if the difference between WMI and PSI is 22 or less.

According to the WISC-IV manual, the definition of the intellectual level of each participant is based on interpretable quotients and primarily based on the FSIQ. In case of an uninterpretable FSIQ, the intellectual level is based on GAI; in case of an uninterpretable GAI, the intellectual level is based on the VCI and/or PRI. Levels of intellectual functioning, profile discrepancies, and profile strengths and weaknesses are reported in Box 1.

Box 1

The level of intellectual functioning can be qualitatively described on the basis of index scores as very superior (≥130), superior (120–129), high average (110–119), average (90–109), low average (80–89), borderline (70–79), and extremely low (≤69).

WISC IV Profile: Discrepancies

These discrepancies can be calculated:

Discrepancy between FSIQ and GAI

GAI-related discrepancy between VCI and PRI

CPI-related discrepancy between WMI and PSI

Discrepancy between GAI and CPI

Discrepancy between highest index and lowest index within VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI

Discrepancy between highest subtest and lowest subtest

WISC-IV Profile: Strengths and Weaknesses

According to WISC-IV manual, the following can be identified for each participant:

Normative strengths (an interpretable index within VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI ≥ 115) and normative weaknesses (an interpretable index within VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI < 85).

Individual strengths and individual weaknesses: these are present if the difference between an index and the mean of the 4 indexes (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI) is above or below a cutoff point reported in the WISC-IV manual for each index and varying for age.

Key assets and high-priority concerns: Key assets are defined as those individual strengths > 115 that have a normative frequency < 10%, as indicated by cutoff point reported in the WISC-IV manual. High-priority concerns are defined as those individual weaknesses < 85 that have a normative frequency < 10%, as indicated by cutoff point reported in the WISC-IV manual.

Learning proficiency tasks

Specific tasks developed in the Italian clinical context were administered for the assessment of learning proficiency. Word and nonword reading and writing and sentence writing were assessed with the Batteria per la valutazione della Dislessia e della Disortografia Evolutiva–2 (Sartori, Job, & Tressoldi, 2007); text reading and writing (dictation) were assessed with the MT Series (for primary schools: Cornoldi & Colpo, 2011; for first grade: Cornoldi & Colpo, 2012; for second grade: Cornoldi et al., 2010). Mathematical abilities involving number sense (forward and backward counting, number reading, writing and repetition, number semantics) and calculation (multiplication tables, arithmetic facts, oral and written calculation) were assessed with the Batteria per la Discalculia Evolutiva (BDE; Bachmann, Mengheri, & Biancardi, 2014; Biancardi & Nicoletti, 2004), which provides a number quotient, a calculation quotient, and a general number and calculation quotient.

Diagnoses

According to the DSM-5 and to the Italian diagnostic guidelines (Consensus Conference, 2007; DSA, 2011), participants were diagnosed as SLD if at least one interpretable WISC-IV index among Verbal Comprehension or Perceptual Reasoning (see Box 1) was 85 or greater and performances on reading, writing, and/or arithmetic skills were under the clinical cutoff scores indicated by cited guidelines (i.e., usually ≤2 standard deviations below the mean performances of age-matched participants or ≤5–10 percentiles).

Participants were classified as CRC if at least one WISC-IV index among Verbal Comprehension or Perceptual Reasoning (see Box 1) was 85 or greater and any performance on tasks of proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic skills was compatible with a diagnosis of SLD (i.e., >2 standard deviations below mean performances of age-matched participants or >5–10 percentiles).

With the aim of selecting a homogenous group of SLD without significant comorbid and potentially confounding factors (not infrequently co-occurring with SLD), exclusion criteria for this study were the presence of significant medical and psychological problems and the presence of comorbid disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, developmental coordination disorder, present specific language impairment, and disruptive behaviors (e.g., oppositional defiant disorder); these exclusion criteria were adopted for CRC.

According to the DSM-5 and the Italian guidelines, SLD subtypes of impairment were diagnosed. Impairment in reading was diagnosed if at least two parameters were under cutoff scores (≤2 standard deviations below mean for decoding speed, ≤5 percentile for accuracy) in the three administered tasks: word reading, nonword reading, and text reading. Reading comprehension was not considered to diagnose impairment in reading.

Impairment in written expression was diagnosed if at least two parameters were under cutoff scores for accuracy (≤5 percentile) in the administered tasks (word and nonword writing and text writing for children attending primary school; sentence writing and text writing for older children); isolated difficulties in handwriting were not included in the diagnosis of impairment in written expression.

Impairment in mathematics was diagnosed if at least one quotient provided by the BDE was under cutoff score (≤2 standard deviations below mean). According to guidelines, impairments in reading and in written expression could not be diagnosed before the end of the second primary grade, and impairment in mathematics could not be diagnosed before the end of the third primary grade.

Moreover, on the basis diagnosed impairments, children with SLD were classified as isolated (one isolated impairment) or associated (two or more comorbid impairments). According to described criteria, these subtypes were diagnosed among 172 children with SLD: 115 children with impairment in reading (66.86% of the SLD sample), 77 with impairment in written expression (44.76% of the SLD sample), and 106 with impairment in mathematics (61.62% of the SLD sample). Furthermore, 65 children presented an isolated impairment (37.79% of the SLD sample: 24 reading, 17 written expression, 24 mathematics) and 107 presented associated impairments (25 reading and written expression, 23 reading and mathematics, 15 written expression and mathematics, 44 reading, written expression and mathematics).

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between groups (SLD vs. CRC; CRC between SLD subtypes, among SLD subtypes) were performed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analyses were also performed in case of multiple comparisons. Chi-square analysis was used for comparisons of frequencies. Paired t test was used to compare performances in different WISC-IV indexes and subtests in the same subgroup.

Results

Demographic data and WISC-IV performances of children with SLD and of CRC are reported in Table 1. Analyses of WISC-IV profiles of children with SLD and of CRC, including frequencies of interpretable quotients, normative strengths and weaknesses, individual strengths and weaknesses, key assets, and high-priority concerns are reported in Table 2. Correlations between WISC-IV indexes and between WISC-IV subtests in children with SLD are reported in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Demographic data and WISC-IV performances of SLD subgroups with isolated impairments are reported in Table 5. Comparisons between pairs of isolated impairments and their association are reported in Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 1.

Demographic Data and WISC-IV Performances in Children With SLD and in CRC.

Measures	SLD (M, SD)	CRC (M, SD)
Descriptive characteristics
Age (years)	10.71 (2.79)	10.51 (2.54)
Gender (M/F)	110/62	46/28
Grade	5.58 (2.67)	5.45 (2.47)
WISC-IV indexes
Full-Scale IQ	93.85 (11.23)	102.26 (11.00)**
General Ability	98.91 (12.01)	103.42 (11.38)**
Cognitive Proficiency	87.81 (12.48)	99.51 (11.20)**
Verbal Comprehension	97.22 (12.97)	99.57 (12.94)
Perceptual Reasoning	101.01 (12.79)	107.03 (12.13)**
Working Memory	88.05 (12.41)	98.54 (11.01)**
Processing Speed	92.40 (13.37)	100.73 (13.52)**
WISC-IV subtests
Similarities	8.80 (2.30)	9.66 (2.37)**
Vocabulary	9.39 (2.51)	9.80 (2.55)
Comprehension	10.40 (3.02)	10.31 (2.70)
Block Design	9.71 (2.58)	10.68 (2.42)**
Picture Concepts	10.47 (2.93)	11.49 (2.62)*
Matrix Reasoning	10.36 (2.45)	11.18 (2.67)*
Digit Span	8.10 (2.36)	9.82 (2.16)**
Letter–Number Sequencing	7.93 (2.47)	9.70 (2.29)**
Coding	7.57 (2.67)	9.09 (2.70)**
Symbol Search	9.88 (2.52)	11.20 (2.44)**
WISC-IV discrepancies
FSIQ-GAI	6.30 (4.68)	3.72 (3.17)**
GAI-CPI	14.68 (10.90)	9.11 (8.24)**
VCI-PRI	11.75 (9.31)	13.00 (10.36)
WMI-PSI	13.91 (10.00)	12.68 (11.02)
Highest – lowest index	26.05 (10.57)	22.26 (11.96)*
Highest – lowest subtest	7.71 (2.27)	6.85 (1.98)**

Note. Ns: children with specific learning disorder = 172, clinical referral controls = 74. WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); SLD = specific learning disorder; CRC = clinical referral controls; FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001.

Table 2.

Analyses of WISC-IV Profiles in Children With SLD and in CRC.

Descriptive characteristics	SLD (n, %)	CRC (n, %)
Interpretable FSIQ	78 (45.34)	38 (51.35)
Interpretable GAI	148 (86.04)	63 (85.13)
Interpretable CPI	139 (80.81)	63 (85.13)
GAI > FSIQ	140 (81.39)	42 (56.75)**
VCI > PRI	71 (41.27)	20 (27.02)
WMI > PSI	60 (34.88)	28 (37.83)
Normative strengths
VCI	14 (8.13)	6 (8.10)
PRI	15 (8.72)	10 (13.51)
WMI	0 (0)	4 (5.40)**
PSI	5 (2.90)	4 (5.40)
Normative weaknesses
VCI	26 (15.11)	10 (13.51)
PRI	6 (3.48)	0 (0)
WMI	54 (31.39)	5 (6.75)**
PSI	31 (18.02)	1 (1.35)**
Individual strengths
VCI	43 (25.0)	8 (10.81)**
PRI	68 (39.53)	25 (33.78)
WMI	12 (6.97)	7 (9.45)
PSI	27 (15.69)	9 (12.16)
Individual weaknesses
VCI	27 (15.69)	18 (24.32)
PRI	13 (7.55)	2 (2.70)
WMI	77 (44.76)	20 (27.02)**
PSI	44 (25.58)	13 (17.56)
Key assets
VCI	14 (8.13)	6 (8.10)
PRI	21 (12.20)	13 (17.56)
WMI	0 (0)	3 (4.05)**
PSI	4 (2.32)	6 (8.10)*
High-priority concerns
VCI	13 (7.55)	5 (6.75)
PRI	0 (0)	1 (1.35)
WMI	35 (20.34)	4 (5.40)**
PSI	18 (10.46)	1 (1.35)*

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001.

Table 3.

Correlations Between WISC-IV Indexes in Children With SLD.

Indexes	GAI	CPI	VCI	PRI	WMI	PSI
FSIQ	.876**	.704**	.735**	.723**	.686**	.406**
GAI		.286**	.848**	.800**	.444**	.015
CPI			.229**	.266**	.738**	.784**
VCI				.366**	.381**	–.013
PRI					.365**	.060
WMI						.166*
PSI

Note. WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); SLD = specific learning disorder; FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001.

Table 4.

Correlations Between WISC-IV Subtests in Children With SLD.

Subtests	VOC	CO	BD	PC	MR	DS	LN	CD	SS
SI	.668**	.547**	.366**	.461**	.391**	.377**	.362**	.118	.181*
VOC		.472**	.376**	.356**	.339**	.334**	.327**	.153*	.221**
CO			.191*	.320**	.264**	.240**	.268**	.060	.113
BD				.455**	.494**	.305**	.409**	.161*	.242**
PC					.422**	.275**	.382**	.124	.241**
MR						.339**	.450**	.154*	.253**
DS							.544**	.078	.179*
LN								.243**	.337**
CD									.505**
SS

Note. WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); SLD = specific learning disorder; SI = Similarities; VOC = Vocabulary; CO = Comprehension; BD = Block Design; PC = Picture Concepts; MR = Matrix Reasoning; DS = Digit Span; LN = Letter–Number Sequencing; CD = Coding; SS = Symbol Search.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001.

Table 5.

Demographic Data and WISC-IV Performances in CRC and in SLD Subtypes of Impairment.

Measures	CRC (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IR (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IM (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IWE (M, SD)
Descriptive characteristics
Age (years)	10.51 (2.54)	12.21 (3.10)	10.83 (2.77)	9.23 (2.00)
Gender (M/F)	46/28	17/7	14/10	11/6
Grade	5.45 (2.47)	7.08 (2.99)	6.04 (2.64)	4.54 (1.85)
WISC-IV indexes
Full-Scale IQ	102.26 (11.00)	101.17 (8.17)	90.67 (9.40)**	99.08 (7.44)
General Ability	103.42 (11.38)	107.00 (8.79)	95.67 (8.72)**	101.92 (13.41)
Cognitive Proficiency	99.51 (11.20)	91.71 (10.72)*	86.17 (11.59)**	95.15 (8.41)
Verbal Comprehension	99.57 (12.94)	103.58 (9.41)	95.92 (10.24)	102.31 (15.99)
Perceptual Reasoning	107.03 (12.13)	109.04 (11.31)	96.33 (8.21)**	101.54 (15.02)
Working Memory	98.54 (11.01)	94.50 (12.53)	85.13 (10.22)**	93.08 (8.34)
Processing Speed	100.73 (13.52)	91.54 (11.79)*	92.88 (13.20)*	98.85 (10.64)
WISC-IV subtests
Similarities	9.66 (2.37)	8.79 (2.73)	8.79 (2.91)	8.31 (2.17)
Vocabulary	9.80 (2.55)	9.71 (3.12)	8.88 (2.45)	9.00 (3.05)
Comprehension	10.31 (2.70)	10.08 (3.13)	10.58 (3.50)	10.08 (2.87)
Block Design	10.68 (2.42)	10.42 (3.57)	8.21 (2.79)**	9.85 (2.34)
Picture Concepts	11.49 (2.62)	11.21 (3.14)	9.13 (3.37)	9.77 (3.21)
Matrix Reasoning	11.18 (2.67)	10.50 (3.40)	9.38 (2.94)	10.15 (1.46)
Digit Span	9.82 (2.16)	8.79 (2.84)	8.08 (2.82)**	7.75 (3.02)
Letter–Number Sequencing	9.70 (2.29)	9.71 (2.71)	7.79 (2.33)**	8.38 (2.87)
Coding	9.09 (2.70)	8.04 (2.15)*	7.63 (2.35)	8.62 (2.39)
Symbol Search	11.20 (2.44)	10.17 (1.94)	9.46 (2.34)*	10.31 (3.22)
WISC-IV discrepancies
FSIQ-GAI	3.72 (3.17)	5.92 (4.82)	5.63 (3.88)	6.08 (4.17)
GAI-CPI	9.11 (8.24)	11.17 (8.36)	12.75 (8.40)	8.77 (7.07)
VCI-PRI	13.00 (10.36)	12.92 (9.05)	10.96 (9.29)	14.08 (8.71)
WMI-PSI	12.68 (11.02)	15.38 (13.45)	11.04 (8.30)	16.31 (11.34)
Highest – lowest index	22.26 (11.96)	26.08 (10.71)	22.33 (10.52)	24.62 (8.96)
Highest – lowest subtest	6.85 (1.98)	7.67 (1.99)	6.88 (1.65)	7.31 (2.21)

Note. Ns: IR = SLD children with isolated impairment in reading (n = 24), IM = SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics (n = 24); IWE = SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression (n = 17); clinical referral controls = 74. WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); CRC = clinical referral controls; SLD = specific learning disorder; FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001 in comparison with CRC.

Table 6.

Comparison of Isolated Versus Associated Impairments: Reading and Mathematics.

Measures	CRC (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IR (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IM (M, SD)	SLD IR + IM (M, SD)
Descriptive characteristics
Age (years)	10.51 (2.54)	12.21 (3.10)	10.83 (2.77)	10.96 (3.19)
Gender (M/F)	46/28	17/7	14/10	22/11
Grade	5.45 (2.47)	7.08 (2.99)	6.04 (2.64)	5.87 (2.33)
WISC-IV indexes
Full-Scale IQ	102.26 (11.00)	101.17 (8.17)	90.67 (9.40)*	92.00 (12.69)**
General Ability	103.42 (11.38)	107.00 (8.79)	95.67 (8.72)**	106.68 (8.75)**
Cognitive Proficiency	99.51 (11.20)	91.71 (10.72)	86.17 (11.59)	86.30 (14.71)
Verbal Comprehension	99.57 (12.94)	103.58 (9.41)	95.92 (10.24)	95.39 (10.41)*
Perceptual Reasoning	107.03 (12.13)	109.04 (11.31)	96.33 (8.21)**	99.74 (16.34)*
Working Memory	98.54 (11.01)	94.50 (12.53)	85.13 (10.22)*	86.57 (13.62)
Processing Speed	100.73 (13.52)	91.54 (11.79)	92.88 (13.20)	91.70 (14.53)
WISC-IV subtests
Similarities	9.66 (2.37)	8.79 (2.73)	8.79 (2.91)	7.91 (2.31)
Vocabulary	9.80 (2.55)	9.71 (3.12)	8.88 (2.45)	8.52 (2.76)
Comprehension	10.31 (2.70)	10.08 (3.13)	10.58 (3.50)	9.70 (3.54)
Block Design	10.68 (2.42)	10.42 (3.57)	8.21 (2.79)**	9.39 (3.29)
Picture Concepts	11.49 (2.62)	11.21 (3.14)	9.13 (3.37)	9.70 (3.03)
Matrix Reasoning	11.18 (2.67)	10.50 (3.40)	9.38 (2.94)	10.26 (3.07)
Digit Span	9.82 (2.16)	8.79 (2.84)	8.08 (2.82)	8.48 (2.57)
Letter–Number Sequencing	9.70 (2.29)	9.71 (2.71)	7.79 (2.33)**	7.52 (2.59)*
Coding	9.09 (2.70)	8.04 (2.15)	7.63 (2.35)	7.26 (3.09)
Symbol Search	11.20 (2.44)	10.17 (1.94)	9.46 (2.34)	9.35 (2.53)
WISC-IV discrepancies
FSIQ-GAI	3.72 (3.17)	5.92 (4.82)	5.63 (3.88)	5.91 (4.93)
GAI-CPI	9.11 (8.24)	11.17 (8.36)	12.75 (8.40)	11.52 (11.66)
VCI-PRI	13.00 (10.36)	12.92 (9.05)	10.96 (9.29)	12.30 (12.95)
WMI-PSI	12.68 (11.02)	15.38 (13.45)	11.04 (8.30)	10.65 (7.69)
Highest – lowest index	22.26 (11.96)	26.08 (10.71)	22.33 (10.52)	23.09 (13.02)
Highest – lowest subtest	6.85 (1.98)	7.67 (1.99)	6.88 (1.65)	7.35 (3.20)

Note. Ns: IR (SLD children with isolated impairment in reading) = 24, IM (SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics) = 24); IR + IM = 23; clinical referral controls = 74. CRC = clinical referral controls; SLD = specific learning disorder; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001 in comparison with IR.

Table 7.

Comparison of Isolated Versus Associated Impairments: Reading and Written Expression.

Measures	CRC (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IR (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IWE (M, SD)	SLD IR + IWE (M, SD)
Descriptive characteristics
Age (years)	10.51 (2.54)	12.21 (3.10)	9.23 (2.00)**	9.17 (2.58)**
Gender (M/F)	46/28	17/7	11/6
Grade	5.45 (2.47)	7.08 (2.99)	4.54 (1.85)**	3.83 (2.58)**
WISC-IV indexes
Full-Scale IQ	102.26 (11.00)	101.17 (8.17)	99.08 (7.44)	97.46 (12.17)
General Ability	103.42 (11.38)	107.00 (8.79)	101.92 (13.41)	103.17 (13.19)
Cognitive Proficiency	99.51 (11.20)	91.71 (10.72)	95.15 (8.41)	89.58 (12.52)
Verbal Comprehension	99.57 (12.94)	103.58 (9.41)	102.31 (15.99)	102.50 (13.75)
Perceptual Reasoning	107.03 (12.13)	109.04 (11.31)	101.54 (15.02)	102.63 (13.67)
Working Memory	98.54 (11.01)	94.50 (12.53)	93.08 (8.34)	91.50 (12.96)
Processing Speed	100.73 (13.52)	91.54 (11.79)	98.85 (10.64)	91.96 (12.53)
WISC-IV subtests
Similarities	9.66 (2.37)	8.79 (2.73)	8.31 (2.17)	9.00 (2.18)
Vocabulary	9.80 (2.55)	9.71 (3.12)	9.00 (3.05)	10.00 (2.67)
Comprehension	10.31 (2.70)	10.08 (3.13)	10.08 (2.87)	10.71 (2.85)
Block Design	10.68 (2.42)	10.42 (3.57)	9.85 (2.34)	10.21 (2.68)
Picture Concepts	11.49 (2.62)	11.21 (3.14)	9.77 (3.21)	10.83 (2.79)
Matrix Reasoning	11.18 (2.67)	10.50 (3.40)	10.15 (1.46)	10.71 (2.92)
Digit Span	9.82 (2.16)	8.79 (2.84)	7.75 (3.02)	8.92 (2.58)
Letter–Number Sequencing	9.70 (2.29)	9.71 (2.71)	8.38 (2.87)	8.75 (2.23)
Coding	9.09 (2.70)	8.04 (2.15)	8.62 (2.39)	7.38 (3.07)
Symbol Search	11.20 (2.44)	10.17 (1.94)	10.31 (3.22)	10.29 (2.45)
WISC-IV discrepancies
FSIQ-GAI	3.72 (3.17)	5.92 (4.82)	6.08 (4.17)	6.79 (5.02)
GAI-CPI	9.11 (8.24)	11.17 (8.36)	8.77 (7.07)	14.54 (11.17)
VCI-PRI	13.00 (10.36)	12.92 (9.05)	14.08 (8.71)	10.17 (8.24)
WMI-PSI	12.68 (11.02)	15.38 (13.45)	16.31 (11.34)	12.13 (7.46)
Highest – lowest index	22.26 (11.96)	26.08 (10.71)	24.62 (8.96)	23.83 (10.29)
Highest – lowest subtest	6.85 (1.98)	7.67 (1.99)	7.31 (2.21)	7.57 (2.55)

Note. Ns: IR (SLD children with isolated impairment in reading) = 24, IWE (SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression) = 17; IR + IWE = 25; clinical referral controls = 74. CRC = clinical referral controls; SLD = specific learning disorder; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

**p ≤ .001 in comparison with IR.

Table 8.

Comparison of Isolated Versus Associated Impairments: Written Expression and Mathematics.

Measures	CRC (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IWE (M, SD)	SLD Isolated IM (M, SD)	SLD IWE + IM (M, SD)
Descriptive characteristics
Age (years)	10.51 (2.54)	9.23 (2.00)	10.83 (2.77)**	10.40 (2.13)
Gender (M/F)	46/28	11/6	14/10
Grade	5.45 (2.47)	4.54 (1.85)	6.04 (2.64)	5.13 (1.92)
WISC-IV indexes
Full-Scale IQ	102.26 (11.00)	99.08 (7.44)	90.67 (9.40)*	91.73 (9.26)*
General Ability	103.42 (11.38)	101.92 (13.41)	95.67 (8.72)	92.60 (8.93)*
Cognitive Proficiency	99.51 (11.20)	95.15 (8.41)	86.17 (11.59)	92.33 (10.62)
Verbal Comprehension	99.57 (12.94)	102.31 (15.99)	95.92 (10.24)	89.47 (11.40)*
Perceptual Reasoning	107.03 (12.13)	101.54 (15.02)	96.33 (8.21)	98.07 (8.98)
Working Memory	98.54 (11.01)	93.08 (8.34)	85.13 (10.22)*	89.60 (14.01)
Processing Speed	100.73 (13.52)	98.85 (10.64)	92.88 (13.20)	98.07 (14.12)
WISC-IV subtests
Similarities	9.66 (2.37)	8.31 (2.17)	8.79 (2.91)	8.13 (2.69)
Vocabulary	9.80 (2.55)	9.00 (3.05)	8.88 (2.45)	8.80 (2.00)
Comprehension	10.31 (2.70)	10.08 (2.87)	10.58 (3.50)	9.27 (2.60)
Block Design	10.68 (2.42)	9.85 (2.34)	8.21 (2.79)	9.47 (1.95)
Picture Concepts	11.49 (2.62)	9.77 (3.21)	9.13 (3.37)	9.87 (3.20)
Matrix Reasoning	11.18 (2.67)	10.15 (1.46)	9.38 (2.94)	10.33 (2.69)
Digit Span	9.82 (2.16)	7.75 (3.02)	8.08 (2.82)	8.07 (2.31)
Letter–Number Sequencing	9.70 (2.29)	8.38 (2.87)	7.79 (2.33)	8.33 (3.06)
Coding	9.09 (2.70)	8.62 (2.39)	7.63 (2.35)	6.40 (2.82)
Symbol Search	11.20 (2.44)	10.31 (3.22)	9.46 (2.34)	10.27 (3.17)
WISC-IV discrepancies
FSIQ-GAI	3.72 (3.17)	6.08 (4.17)	5.63 (3.88)	4.87 (6.41)
GAI-CPI	9.11 (8.24)	8.77 (7.07)	12.75 (8.40)	13.40 (9.29)
VCI-PRI	13.00 (10.36)	14.08 (8.71)	10.96 (9.29)	12.13 (10.58)
WMI-PSI	12.68 (11.02)	16.31 (11.34)	11.04 (8.30)	12.60 (8.60)
Highest – lowest index	22.26 (11.96)	24.62 (8.96)	22.33 (10.52)	24.27 (9.55)
Highest – lowest subtest	6.85 (1.98)	7.31 (2.21)	6.88 (1.65)	7.73 (1.87)

Note. Ns: IM (SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics) = 24; IWE (SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression) = 17; IWE + IM = 15; clinical referral controls = 74. CRC = clinical referral controls; SLD = specific learning disorder; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.); FSIQ = Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .001 in comparison with IWE.

Comparison Between Children With SLD and CRC

CRC outperformed children with SLD on FSIQ, F(1, 244) = 29.144, p < .001, η²_p = 0.11, GAI, F(1, 244) = 7433., p = .00, η²_p = 0.03, CPI, F(1, 244) = 48.165, p < .001, η²_p = 0.16, PRI, F(1, 244) = 11.387, p = .001, η²_p = 0.04, WMI, F(1, 244) = 38.690, p < .001, η²_p = 0.14, and PSI, F(1, 244) = 20.154, p < .001, η²_p = 0.08 (see Table 1) and for subtests on Similarities, F(1, 244) = 7.269, p = .008, η²_p = 0.03, Block Design, F(1, 244) = 7.221, p = .008, η²_p = 0.03, Picture Concepts, F(1, 244) = 6.536, p = .011, η²_p = 0.03, Matrix Reasoning, F(1, 244) = 5.084, p = .025, η²_p = 0.02, Digit Span, F(1, 244) = 28.323, p < .001, η²_p = 0.10, Letter–Number Sequencing, F(1, 244) = 27.433, p < .001, η²_p = 0.10, Coding, F(1, 244) = 16.604, p < .001, η²_p = 0.06, and Symbol Search, F(1, 244) = 14.816, p < .001, η²_p = partial 0.06. Moreover, CRC presented a lower discrepancy between FSIQ and GAI, F(1, 244) = 18.717, p < .001, η²_p = 0.07, between GAI and CPI, F(1, 244) = 15.465, p < .001, η²_p = 0.06, between highest and lowest index, F(1, 244) = 6.233, p = .013, η²_p = 0.02, and between highest and lowest subtest, F(1, 244) = 7.798, p = .006, η²_p = 0.03.

No significant differences emerged between frequencies of interpretable indexes (FSIQ, GAI, and CPI) in children with SLD and in CRC (see Table 2); in both groups GAI and CPI were interpretable with significant higher frequencies in comparison with FSIQ (in SLD: χ² = 63.21, p < .001 and χ² = 46.45, p < .001, respectively; in CRC: χ² = 19.49, p < .001 and χ² = 19.49, p < .001, respectively).

Comparison Between SLD Isolated Impairments and CRC

Comparing CRC and SLD subtypes of isolated impairments (24 reading, 17 written expression, 24 mathematics), differences emerged for FSIQ, F(3, 135) = 8.723, p < .001, η²_p = 0.17, GAI, F(3, 135) = 4.929, p = .003, η²_p = 0.10, CPI, F(3, 135) = 10.385, p < .001, η²_p = 0.19, PRI, F(3, 135) = 6.478, p < .001, η²_p = 0.13, WMI, F(3, 135) = 9.180, p < .001, η²_p = 0.17, PSI, F(3, 135) = 4.543, p = .005, η²_p = 0.09, and among subtests for Block Design, F(3, 135) = 6.003, p = .001, η²_p = 0.12, Matrix Reasoning, F(3, 135) = 746, p = .045, η²_p = 0.05, Digit Span, F(3, 135) = 4.744, p = .004, η²_p = 0.09, Letter–Number Sequencing, F(3, 135) = 8.006, p = .027, η²_p = 0.15, Coding, F(3, 135) = 3.411, p = .019, η²_p = 0.07, and Symbol Search, F(3, 135) = 3.995, p = .009, η²_p = 0.08.

Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analysis showed the following:

FSIQ: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading and SLD children with impairment in written expression outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p < .001, p = .001, p = .039, respectively)

GAI: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .011, p = .001, p < .001, respectively)

CPI: CRC outperformed both SLD children with impairment of reading and SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .023 and p < .001, respectively); SLD children with impairment in written expression outperformed only SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .047)

PRI: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (both p = .001)

WMI: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p < .001 and p = .012, respectively)

PSI: CRC outperformed SLD children with impairment in reading (p = .014)

Block Design: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .003 and p = .001, respectively)

Digit Span: CRC outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .002)

Letter–Number Sequencing: CRC and SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p < .001 and p = .004, respectively)

Coding: CRC outperformed SLD children with impairment in reading (p = .024)

Symbol Search: CRC outperformed SLD children with impairment in mathematics (p = .035)

Investigation of Comorbidity: Isolated Versus Associated Impairments

In the previous analysis CRC and the three SLD subgroups of isolated impairment were compared. The next step, as already reported in the recent study of Wilcutt and colleagues (2013) in relation to the comorbidity between reading and mathematics impairments, is the comparison between two SLD subtypes of isolated impairment and the SLD subtype with these impairments in association.

Reading and mathematics: In the previous analysis SLD children with isolated impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics on FSIQ, GAI, PRI, WMI, Block Design, and Letter–Number Sequencing. Comparing SLD children with isolated impairment in reading (n = 24), SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics (n = 24), and SLD children with associated impairments in reading and in mathematics (n = 23), differences emerged for FSIQ, F(2, 68) = 8.313, p = .001, η²_p = 0.20, GAI, F(2, 68) = 10.079, p < .001, η²_p = 0.23, VCI, F(2, 68) = 5.414, p = .007, η²_p = 0.14, PRI, F(2, 68) = 7.507, p = .001, η²_p = 0.18, WMI, F(2, 68) = 4.959, p = .010, η²_p = 0.13, and among subtests only for Letter–Number Sequencing, F(2, 68) = 4.509, p = .014, η²_p = 0.12. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analysis showed that SLD children with impairment in reading outperformed SLD children with impairments in reading and in mathematics in association on FSIQ (p = .009), GAI (p = .005), VCI (p = .026), PRI (p = .037), and Letter–Number Sequencing (p = .020), whereas no significant differences emerged between SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics and SLD children with impairments of reading and mathematics in association

Reading and written expression: In the previous analysis no differences emerged between SLD children with isolated impairment in reading and SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression. Also comparing SLD children with isolated impairment in reading (n = 24), SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression (n = 17) and SLD children with impairments in reading and in written expression in association (n = 25), no significant differences emerged.

Written expression and mathematics: In the previous analysis SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression outperformed SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics on FSIQ and CPI. Comparing SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression (n = 17), SLD children with isolated impairment in mathematics (n = 24) and SLD children with impairments in written expression and in mathematics in association (n = 15), significant differences emerged for FSIQ, F(2, 53) = 4.877, p = .011, η²_p = 0.15, GAI, F(2, 53) = 3.349, p = .43, η²_p = 0.11, CPI, F(2, 53) = 4.069, p = .023, η²_p = 0.13, VCI, F(2, 53) = 4.093, p = .022, η²_p = 0.13. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc analysis showed that SLD children with isolated impairment in written expression outperformed SLD children with isolated impairments in mathematics also on WMI (p = .040) and outperformed SLD children with impairments in written expression and in mathematics in association on FSIQ (p = .040), GAI (p = .028), and VCI (p = .011).

Discussion

This study aimed at investigating WISC-IV intellectual profiles associated with the single overarching diagnostic category of SLD introduced by the DSM-5. Specific predictions were formulated regarding the presence of (a) deficits in working memory and processing speed in children with SLD and (b) different WISC-IV profiles between subtypes of SLD. These predictions were confirmed by empirical findings, as discussed in the three next sections.

Identification of Intellectual Functioning in Children With SLD

A first issue concerns the identification of the level of intellectual functioning. In both SLD and CRC groups only 45.34% and 51.35% of participants, respectively, presented an interpretable FSIQ; these low frequencies were due to mean discrepancies between the highest and lowest indexes (among VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI) that were higher than the cutoff point (≤22) indicated in the WISC-IV manual (Wechsler, 2003b) to consider the FSIQ as interpretable (26.05 ± 10.57 for children with SLD; 22.26 ± 11.96 for CRC). Different from FSIQ, both GAI and CPI presented higher frequencies of interpretable scores (86.04% and 80.81%, respectively, in children with SLD; 85.13% and 85.13%, respectively, in CRC). The low frequencies of interpretable FSIQ in children with SLD and in CRC were mostly due to the discrepancy between indexes of General Ability and indexes of Cognitive Proficiency, and children with SLD presented a higher discrepancy between GAI and CPI in comparison with CRC (14.68 ± 10.90 vs. 9.11 ± 8.24). Therefore the FSIQ in children with SLD was lowered by CPI, as suggested by the 81.39% of children with GAI greater than FSIQ (56.75% in CRC, p < .001), similarly to the greater than 70% reported by Wechsler (2003b) in 133 children with SLD and 45 children with SLD and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. These findings confirmed the first prediction formulated regarding the presence of working memory and processing speed deficits in the WISC-IV intellectual profile of children with SLD.

Moreover, considering its frequencies of interpretable scores and of higher scores in comparison with FSIQ (98.91 ±12.01 vs. 93.85 ± 11.23), this study also suggested that the GAI could probably be considered the best and more conservative measure provided by the WISC-IV to identify intellectual functioning in children with SLD (Cornoldi, Giofrè, Orsini, & Pezzuti, 2014; Prifitera, Weiss, & Saklofske, 1998; Raiford, Weiss, Rolfhus, & Coalson, 2005; Wechsler, 2003b; Weiss & Gabel, 2008). A significant discrepancy between GAI and CPI (with GAI > CPI) was reported also in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006; Thaler, Bello, & Etcoff, 2013), intellectual disabilities (Koriakin et al., 2013), high-functioning autism (Mayes & Calhoun, 2008; Oliveras-Rentas, Kenworthy, Roberson, Martin, & Wallace, 2012), and pediatric epilepsy (Gottlieb, Zelko, Jim, & Nordli, 2012), indicating that a significant intellectual discrepancy between GAI and CPI (GAI > CPI) could be considered a “cognitive sign” of SLD taken as a single diagnostic category and probably also of other neurodevelopmental disorders. As a matter of fact, these neurodevelopmental disorders present heterogeneous cognitive profiles but share an impairment of executive functions (Danielsson, Henry, Messer, & Ronnberg, 2012; Johnson, 2012; Parrish et al., 2007; Pellicano, 2012; Rubia, 2011; Van der Molen, Van Luit, Jongmans, & Van der Molen, 2007), that may directly affect WISC-IV performances in CPI-related subtests rather than GAI-related subtests. At the same time it must be emphasized that an impairment of executive functions, especially of working memory rather than of processing speed, may also affect abilities tapped by GAI-related subtests (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2002; Cornoldi, Orsini, Cianci, Giofrè, & Pezzuti, 2013; Fry & Hale, 2000). This finding was confirmed also in this study (see Table 3) by high significant correlations between GAI indexes and WMI (r = .444 between GAI and WMI, r = .381 between VCI and WMI, r = .365 between PRI and WMI) and low correlations between GAI indexes and PSI (r = .015 between GAI and PSI, r = –.013 between VCI and PSI, r = .061 between PRI and PSI).

Comparison Between Children With SLD and Clinical Referral Controls

A second issue regards the comparison of WISC-IV intellectual profiles between children with SLD and CRC. SLD children presented lower scores in comparison with CRC in FSIQ, GAI, CPI, WMI, and PSI, and, among subtests, in Similarities, Block Design, Picture Concepts, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Letter–Number Sequencing, Coding, and Symbol Search. Although differences involved many subtests of both GAI and CPI, the analysis of subtest performances suggested that main difficulties of SLD children were limited to Digit Span, Letter–Number Sequencing, and Coding, presenting the lowest mean scores and the highest discrepancies in comparison with CRC (1.72 for Digit Span, 1.77 for Letter–Number Sequencing, 1.52 for Coding). Although lower in comparison with CRC, performances on Symbol Search and on PRI subtests (Block Design, Picture Concepts, Matrix Reasoning) were almost on average and therefore cannot be considered as impaired. Finally, a less severe impairment, in comparison to CPI-related subtest, characterized Similarities, with a score was below average (8.80).

This pattern confirmed again the first prediction of the study regarding the presence of working memory and processing speed deficits in SLD and is in agreement with models of multiple cognitive deficits at the basis of neurodevelopmental disorders in general, of SLD in particular (McGrath et al., 2011; Pennington, 2006; Wilcutt et al., 2013; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). The impairment of working memory is in accordance with several previous studies (De Clerq-Quagebeur et al., 2010; De Weerdt et al. 2012; Peng et al., 2012; Schuchardt et al., 2008; Wilcutt et al., 2013), and probably should be a target of general cognitive rehabilitation (e.g., Dunning, Holmes, & Gathercole, 2013; Loosli, Buschkuehl, Perrig, & Jaeggi, 2012) in addition to rehabilitative interventions tailored to specific impairments (reading, written expression, and mathematics). The impairment of processing speed was indicated by more severe difficulties in Coding in comparison with Symbol Search: This pattern could be explained considering that “Symbol Search is a relatively simple visual scan test that requires a minimum of graphomotor demand in relation to Coding, which has more demanding visual search, memory, and copying components that could be significant factors in understanding score differences” (Weiss et al., 2006, p. 155). Therefore the more demanding visual search component of Coding in comparison with Symbol Search could explain more difficulties of SLD children in this subtest.

Regarding the milder deficit in Similarities, this subtest asks how two words representing objects or concepts are alike. The concepts must have been acquired and stored in long-term memory, and the child must be able to access that knowledge from semantic memory on demand. Once these words are recalled, the child can begin to think about similarities: According to Weiss and colleagues (2006, pp. 144–145),

This reasoning process appears to take place within a transitory working memory space, and the ability to reason may be related to working memory capacity and the efficiency with which ideas are processed in working memory before the trace fade. . . . Children with an age-appropriate knowledge base that is readily accessible but who have deficits in higher order categorization of abstract verbal concepts may score higher on Vocabulary than Similarities and Comprehension. In these cases, it may then also be instructive to compare performance on Similarities with Picture Concepts: both subtests require categorization of abstract verbal concepts, but Picture Concepts does not require that the child explain his or her thinking verbally.

In this study both children with SLD and children with CRC had significantly better performances in Picture Concepts in comparison with Similarities (10.47 ± 2.93 vs. 8.80 ± 2.30, t = −6.423, p < .001; 11.49 ± 2.62 vs. 9.66 ± 2.37, t = −5.687, p < .001; respectively). Overall, more severe difficulties of children with SLD in Similarities, in comparison with CRC, are probably due to the interaction between verbal expression and poorer verbal working memory.

Searching for Common and Specific Cognitive Deficits Between SLD Subtypes

From the comparisons between (a) CRC and subgroups of SLD children with isolated impairment and (b) SLD children with isolated impairments and SLD children with the same impairments in association, the following emerged:

Isolated impairment in reading is associated with a cognitive deficit in processing speed, as evidenced by difficulties in Coding, as reported since previous version of the WISC (Kaufman, 1981, 1994; Whitehouse, 1983). As previously underlined, more demanding visual search component of Coding in comparison with Symbol Search could explain specific difficulties of children with impairment in reading in this subtest, confirming that in addition to phonological features (Morris et al., 1998), features of visuospatial attention are involved in reading (e.g., Bosse, Tainturier, & Valdois, 2007; Franceschini, Gori, Ruffino, Pedrolli, & Facoetti, 2012; Menghini et al., 2010), in agreement with the double-deficit model of impairment of reading (Norton et al., 2014; Wolf & Bowers, 1999) and models of multiple cognitive deficits at the basis of neurodevelopmental disorders (Pennington, 2006; Wilcutt et al., 2013).

Isolated impairment in written expression wasn’t associated with any cognitive deficits. This finding could instill doubt that in this cases the diagnosis of SLD was correct; however, restrictive diagnostic criteria on learning proficiency (in this case performances <5 percentile) suggested that these children truly presented a SLD, probably due to underlying cognitive deficits not evaluated by WISC-IC core subtests. In this perspective a recent study examining the structure of working memory impairment in impairment in reading versus impairment in written expression reported distinct underlying cognitive deficits, that is, deficits in domain-general central executive for impairment in reading and more severe deficits of phonological loop for impairment in written expression (Brandenburg et al., 2014). Furthermore, once again this conclusion strongly discourages considering the WISC-IV merely for diagnostic purposes rather than as a tool to define the individual profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses for subsequent intervention programs, according to major conclusions of the white paper of the Learning Disabilities Association of America (2010).

Isolated impairment in mathematics is associated with a more general cognitive deficit involving perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. This finding suggests that the impairment in mathematics is associated with difficulties in several broad abilities described by the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of human abilities (McGrew, 2005) assessed by the WISC-IV, including Fluid Intelligence, Visual Processing, and Short-Term Memory, as previously reported in other studies on children with difficulties in mathematics (J. B. Hale et al., 2008; Proctor, 2012; Taub, Floyd, Keith, & McGrew, 2008).

No significant differences between impairments in reading and in written expression emerged, indicating once again that distinct cognitive deficits (Brandenburg et al., 2014) are not detectable by WISC-IV. Second, no significant differences emerged between isolated impairment in mathematics and impairments in mathematics associated with impairments in reading or in written expression.

Overall these findings confirmed the second prediction of the study regarding the presence of different cognitive deficits between subtypes of SLD impairment, especially comparing impairment in reading and impairment in mathematics, in line with recent studies comparing the same SLD subtypes of impairment (Moll, Gobel, Gooch, Landerl, & Snowling, 2014; Wilcutt et al., 2013).

Limitations

The first limitation is the selection of CRC for the comparison with children with SLD. CRC cannot be considered as healthy controls considering their difficulties in learning proficiency, leading to clinical referral, as confirmed by their WISC-IV intellectual profile, characterized by a high discrepancy between indexes (22.26 ± 11.96); this finding is probably due to the restrictive cutoff points suggested by Italian guidelines for the diagnosis of SLD (<2 standard deviations below mean or <5–10 percentiles), leading to the inclusion in CRC of children that could have been included in SLD with less restrictive cutoff points. On one hand, this suggests that the comparison between SLD and age-matched controls selected from the general population or adopting different cutoff points for the diagnosis of SLD could have produced different findings, as impairments in other cognitive domains that resulted almost preserved in this study; on the other hand, it strengthens findings on cognitive impairments associated with SLD, having being detected in comparison with CRC, that is, a population with difficulties in learning proficiency.

The second limitation is represented by the small number of children with SLD in subgroups split on the basis of impairments, leading to a potential loss of statistical power.

The third limitation is that WISC-IV supplemental subtests (Information, Word Reasoning, Picture Completion, Arithmetic, and Cancellation) were not administered; this choice was necessary considering that the WISC-IV was administered during a routine assessment for diagnostic purposes in a clinical service. Indeed, in clinical practice the administration of the WISC is more often limited to core subtests, even if supplemental subtests could provide further information on intellectual abilities.

Therefore these findings need further replication and a comparison between children with SLD and typically developing children.

Conclusions

These six major conclusions can be drawn from this study:

The GAI is the best and more conservative measure provided by the WISC-IV to identify intellectual functioning in children with SLD.

The intellectual discrepancy between GAI and CPI could be considered a “cognitive sign” for the presence of SLD taken a single diagnostic category.

Children with SLD present cognitive deficits related to working memory and processing speed, and milder deficits in the Similarities subtest, supporting models of multiple cognitive deficits at the basis of neurodevelopmental disorders, including SLD.

Impairment in reading is associated with difficulties in processing speed, especially in Coding.

Impairment in mathematics, isolated or in association, is associated with a more general cognitive deficit involving fluid intelligence, working memory, and processing speed.

In addition to the single diagnostic category of SLD, subtypes of impairments have to be specified for empirical, educational, and rehabilitative purposes.

This study reported some cognitive features resulting from the assessment with the WISC-IV in children with SLD. In clinical practice these cognitive features are not sufficient for diagnosing SLD, and at the same time their absence should not suggest the lack of SLD. However, these cognitive features cannot be considered clinically meaningless, and their higher incidence among children with SLD can guide diagnosis and subsequent definitions of intervention programs, special educational needs, and strategies of compensation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflict of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References

Ackerman

P. L.

Beier

M. E.

Boyle

M. O.

(2002). Individual differences in working memory within a nomological network of cognitive and perceptual speed abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 567–589.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bachmann

Mengheri

Biancardi

(2014). Norme per la batteria per la discalculia evolutiva (BDE) per la scuola secondaria e confronto tra campione clinico (DSA) e non clinico [Norms for the Developmental Dyscalculia Battery for the secondary school and comparison between clinical (SLD) and nonclinical sample]. Difficoltà in matematica, 10, 167–200.

Bannatyne

(1968). Diagnosing learning disabilities and writing remedial prescriptions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 242–249.

Bannatyne

(1971). Language, reading and learning disabilities: Psychology, neuropsychology, diagnosis and remediation. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Bannatyne

(1974). Diagnosis: A note on the recategorization of the WISC scale scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 272–273.

Biancardi

Nicoletti

(2004). Batteria per la discalculia evolutiva (BDE) [Developmental dyscalculia battery]. Turin, Italy: Edizioni Omega.

Bosse

M. L.

Tainturier

M. J.

Valdois

(2007). Developmental dyslexia: The visual attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition, 104, 198–230.

Brandenburg

Klasczweski

Fishbach

Schucdart

Buttner

Hasslehorn

(2014). Working memory in children with learning disabilities in reading versus spelling: Searching for overlapping and specific cognitive factors. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219414521665

10.

Consensus Conference. (2007). Disturbi evolutivi specifici di apprendimento. Raccomandazioni per la pratica clinical definite con il metodo della Consensus Conference [Specific developmental disorders of learning: Recommendations for clinical practice based on Consensus Conference method]. Retrieved from www.lineeguidadsa.it

11.

Cornoldi

Cazzola

(2004). Test AC-MT 11-14. Test di valutazione delle abilità di calcolo e problem solving [AC-MT 11-14 Test. Test for the evaluation of calculation and problem solving abilities]. Trento, Italy: Edizioni Erickson.

12.

Cornoldi

Colpo

(2011). Prove di Lettura MT-2 per la scuola primaria [MT-2 reading tasks for primary school]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

13.

Cornoldi

Colpo

(2012). Nuove prove di Lettura MT per la scuola secondaria di I grado [New MT reading tasks for the secondary school of first grade]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

14.

Cornoldi

Giofrè

Orsini

Pezzuti

(2014). Differences in the intellectual profile of children with intellectual vs. learning disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 2224–2230.

15.

Cornoldi

Lucangeli

Bellina

(2012). Test AC-MT 6–11. Test di valutazione delle abilità di calcolo e soluzione di problemi [AC-MT 6-11 Test. Test for the evaluation of calculation and problem solving abilities]. Trento, Italy: Edizioni Erickson.

16.

Cornoldi

Orsini

Cianci

Giofrè

Pezzuti

(2013). Intelligence and working memory control: Evidence from the WISC-IV administration to Italian children. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 9–14.

17.

Cornoldi

Pra Baldi

Friso

Giacomin

Giofrè

Zaccaria

(2010). Prove MT-Avanzate di Lettura e Matematica 2 per il biennio della scuola secondaria di II grado [Advanced MT reading and mathematics task for the biennium of secondary school of II grade]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

18.

D’Angiulli

Siegel

L. S.

(2003). Cognitive functioning as measured by the WISC-R: Do children with learning disabilities have distinct patterns of performance? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 48–58.

19.

Danielsson

Henry

Messer

Ronnberg

(2012). Strengths and weaknesses in executive functioning in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 600–607.

20.

De Clerq-Quagebeur

Casalis

Lemaitre

M. P.

Bourgois

Getto

Vallè

(2010). Neuropsychological profile on the WISC-IV of French children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 563–574.

21.

De Weerdt

Desoete

Roeyers

(2013). Working memory in children with reading disabilities and/or mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 461–472.

22.

DSA. (2011). Documento d’intesa, PARCC [Specific learning disorders document of agreement PARCC 2011]. Retrieved from www.lineeguidadsa.it

23.

Dunning

D. L.

Holmes

Gathercole

S. E.

(2013). Does working memory training lead to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Science, 16, 915–925.

24.

Flanagan

D. P.

Alfonso

V. C.

Mascolo

Hale

J. B.

(2010). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fourth Edition in neuropsychological practice. In Davis

A. S.

(Ed.), Handbook of pediatric neuropsychology (pp. 397–414). New York, NY: Springer.

25.

Flanagan

D. P.

Alfonso

V. C.

Mascolo

Sotelo-Dynega

(2012). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities in the context of an operational definition. In Flanagan

D. P.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment. Theories, tests and issues (3rd ed., pp. 643–669). New York, NY: Guilford.

26.

Flanagan

D. P.

Kaufman

A. S.

(2009). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

27.

Franceschini

Gori

Ruffino

Pedrolli

Facoetti

(2012). A causal link between visual spatial attention and reading acquisition. Current Biology, 22, 814–819.

28.

Fry

A. F.

Hale

(2000). Relationships between processing speed, working memory and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology, 54, 1–34.

29.

Gottlieb

Zelko

F. A.

Kim

D. S.

Nordli

D. R.

(2012). Cognitive proficiency in pediatric epilepsy. Epilepsy and Behavior, 23, 146–151.

30.

Hale

C. R.

Casey

J. E.

Ricciardi

P. W. R.

(2014). A cluster analytic study of the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children–IV in children referred for psychoeducational assessment due to persistent academic difficulties. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29, 75–85.

31.

Hale

J. B.

Fiorello

C. A.

Miller

J. A.

Wenrich

Teodori

Henzel

J. N.

(2008). WISC-IV interpretation for specific learning disabilities identification and intervention. In Prifitera

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(Eds.), WISC-IV Clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 111–172). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

32.

Johnson

M. H.

(2012). Executive function and developmental disorders: The flip side of the coin. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 454–457.

33.

Kaufman

A. S.

(1975). Factor analysis of the WISC-R at 11 age levels between 6 ½ and 16 ½ years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 135–147.

34.

Kaufman

A. S.

(1981). The WISC-R and learning disabilities assessment: State of the art. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 520–526.

35.

Kaufman

A. S.

(1994). Intelligence testing with the WISC-III. New York, NY: John Wiley.

36.

Kavale

K. A.

Forness

S. R.

(1984). A meta-analysis of the Wechsler scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 136–156.

37.

Koriakin

T. A.

McCurdy

M. D.

Papazoglou

Pritchard

A. E.

Zabel

T. A.

Mahone

E. M.

Jacobson

L. A.

(2013). Classification of intellectual disability using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Full-Scale IQ or General Abilities Index? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55, 840–845.

38.

Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2010). The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s white paper on evaluation, identification, and eligibility criteria for students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved from www.ldaamerica.org

39.

Loosli

S. V.

Buschkuehl

Perrig

W. J.

Jaeggi

S. M.

(2012). Working memory training improves reading processes in typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 18, 62–78.

40.

Mayes

S. D.

Calhoun

S. L.

(2006). WISC-IV and WISC-III profiles in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 486–493.

41.

Mayes

S. D.

Calhoun

S. L.

(2008). WISC-IV and WIAT-II profiles in children with high functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 428–439.

42.

McDermott

P. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

Glutting

J. J.

(1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on the Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 290–302.

43.

McGrath

L. M.

Pennington

B. F.

Shanahan

M. A.

Santerre-Lemmon

L. E.

Barnard

H. D.

Wilcutt

E. G.

. . . Olson

R. K.

(2011). A multiple deficit model of reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Searching for shared cognitive deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 547–557.

44.

McGrew

K. S.

(2005). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In Flanagan

D. P.

Genshaft

J. L.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 136–182). New York, NY: Guilford.

45.

Menghini

Finzi

Benassi

Bolzani

Facoetti

Giovagnoli

. . . Vicari

(2010). Different underlying neurocognitive deficits in developmental dyslexia: A comparative study. Neuropsychologia, 48, 863–872.

46.

Moll

Gobel

S. M.

Gooch

Landerl

Snowling

(2014). Cognitive risk factors for specific learning disorder: Processing speed, temporal processing and working memory. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/002221941454722I

47.

Morris

R. D.

Stuebing

K. K.

Fletcher

J. M.

Shaywitz

S. E.

Lyon

G. R.

Shanweiler

D. P.

. . . Shaywitz

B. A.

(1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 347–373.

48.

Moura

Simoes

M. R.

Pereira

(2014). WISC-III cognitive profile in children with developmental dyslexia: Specific cognitive disability and diagnostic utility. Dyslexia, 20, 19–37.

49.

Norton

E. S.

Black

J. M.

Stanley

L. M.

Tanaka

Gabrieli

J. D.

Sawyer

Hoeft

(2014). Functional neuroanatomical evidence for the double deficit hypothesis of developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 61, 235–246.

50.

Oliveras-Rentas

R. E.

Kenworthy

Roberson

R. B.

III Martin

Wallace

G. L.

(2012). WISC-IV profile in high functioning autism spectrum disorders: Impaired processing speed is associated with increased autism communication symptom and decreased adaptive communication abilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 655–664.

51.

Orsini

Pezzuti

Picone

(2012a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV Edizione Italiana. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

52.

Orsini

Pezzuti

Picone

(2012b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV Edizione Italiana. Contributo alla taratura italiana. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

53.

Parrish

Geary

Jones

Seth

Hermann

Seidenberg

(2007). Executive functioning in childhood epilepsy: Parent-report and cognitive assessment. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49, 412–416.

54.

Pellicano

(2012). The development of executive function in autism. Autism Research and Treatment. Retrieved from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aurt/2012/146132/

55.

Peng

Conqying

Beilei

Sha

(2012). Phonological storage and executive function deficits in children with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 452–466.

56.

Pennington

B. F.

(2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 385–413.

57.

Pennington

B. F.

(2009). Diagnosing learning disorders: A neuropsychological framework (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

58.

Prifitera

Dersh

(1993). Base rates of WISC-III diagnostic subtest patterns among normal, learning disabled and ADHD samples. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, WISC-III Monograph, 43–55.

59.

Prifitera

Saklofske

D. H.

Weiss

L. G.

(2008). WISC-IV Clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

60.

Prifitera

Weiss

L. G.

Saklofske

D. H.

(1998). The WISC-III in context. In Prifitera

Saklofske

D. H.

(Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1–38). New York, NY: Academic Press.

61.

Proctor

(2012). Relationship between Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and math achievement within a sample of college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 278–287.

62.

Raiford

S. E.

Weiss

L. G.

Rolfhus

Coalson

(2005). WISC IV Technical report IV: General Ability Index. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

63.

Rubia

(2011). “Cool” inferior frontostriatal dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder versus “hot” ventromedial orbitofrontal-limbic dysfunction in conduct disorder: A review. Biological Psychiatry, 69, e69–e87.

64.

Rugel

R. P.

(1974). WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: A review with respect to Bannatyne’s categorization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 48–55.

65.

Sartori

Job

Tressoldi

P. E.

(2007). DDE-2 Batteria per la valutazione della dislessia e della disortografia evolutiva–2. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.

66.

Schuchardt

Maehler

Hasselhorn

(2008). Working memory deficits in children with specific learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 514–523.

67.

Smith

M. D.

Coleman

Dokecki

P. R.

Davis

E. E.

(1977). Recategorized WISC-R scores of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 437–443.

68.

Smith

M. D.

Watkins

M. W.

(2004). Diagnostic utility of the Bannatyne WISC-III pattern. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 49–56.

69.

Tannock

(2013). Rethinking ADHD and LD in DSM-5: Proposed changes in diagnostic criteria. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 5–25.

70.

Taub

Floyd

R. G.

Keith

T. Z.

McGrew

K. S.

(2008). Effects of general and broad cognitive abilities on mathematics achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 187–198.

71.

Thaler

N. S.

Bello

D. T.

Etcoff

L. M.

(2013). WISC-IV profiles are associated with differences in symptomatology and outcome in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 17, 291–301.

72.

Thomson

(2003). Monitoring dyslexics’ intelligence and attainments: A follow up study. Dyslexia, 9, 3–17.

73.

Vance

H. B.

Singer

M. G.

(1979). Recategorization of the WISC-R subtest scaled scores for learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 437–443.

74.

Van der Molen

M. J.

Van Luit

J. E. H.

Jongmans

M. J.

Van der Molen

M. W.

(2007). Verbal working memory in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 162–169.

75.

Watkins

M. W.

(2000). Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 465–479.

76.

Watkins

M. W.

Kush

J. C.

Glutting

J. J.

(1997a). Discriminant and predictive validity of the WISC-III ACID profile among children with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 309–319.

77.

Watkins

M. W.

Kush

J. C.

Glutting

J. J.

(1997b). Prevalence and diagnostic utility of the WISC-III SCAD profile among children with disabilities. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 235–248.

78.

Wechsler

(2003a). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

79.

Wechsler

(2003b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fourth Edition. Technical and interpretative manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

80.

Weiss

L. G.

Gabel

A. D.

(2008). Using the Cognitive Proficiency Index in psychoeducational assessment (WISC-IV Tech. Rep. No. 6). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

81.

Weiss

L. G.

Saklofske

D. H.

Prifitera

Holdnack

J. A.

(2006). WISC-IV advanced clinical interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

82.

Whitehouse

C. C.

(1983). Analysis of WISC-R Coding performance of normal and dyslexic readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 951–960.

83.

Wilcutt

E. G.

Pennington

B. F.

Duncan

Smith

S. D.

Keenan

J. M.

Wadsworth

. . . Olson

R. K.

(2010). Understanding the complex etiologies of developmental disorders: Behavioral and molecular genetic approaches. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31, 533–544.

84.

Wilcutt

E. G.

Petril

S. A.

Boada

De Fries

J. C.

Olson

R. K.

Pennington

B. F.

(2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: Concurrent psychopathology, functional impairment and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 500–516.

85.

Wolf

Bowers

P. G.

(1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.