Cognitive And Academic Functioning In Maltreated Children
Cognitive and Academic Functioningin Maltreated ChildrenJoseph C. Crozier and Richard P. BarthThis study examines cognitive functioning and academic achievement in maltreated children.The data are from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Weil-Being, a nationalprobability study of children receiving child welfare services due to alleged child maltreatment.Assessments of the cognitive and academic functioning of school-age participants (N 2,368)as well as family risk factors indicate that, on average, maltreated children score significantlybelow national norms on standardized tests of cognitive functioning and academicachievement. Consistent with the proposed pathways, risk factors act cumulatively to predictdecreased cognitive and academic performance, so that children possessing the greatest numberof risk factors were more likely to perform poorly on the cognitive and academic measures.Pupil personnel service providers may benefit from information available to child welfareagencies to better shape the education of maltreated children. Additions to school-basedmethods that address parental risks need development.KEY WORDS: academic achievement; child maltreatment; cognitive developmentearly 5 million calls were made to childwelfare agencies throughout the UnitedStates in 2000 to report child abuse, andapproximately 2 million of the children referred toin these calls were judged to be victims of childmaltreatment (U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services [HHS], 2003). Maltreatment mayhave a substantial impact on the current and futureeducation of children and has been linked to lowercognitive functioning and academic achievementin children and adolescents (Eckenrode, Laird, &Doris, 1993; Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999). Investigators have found that a high proportion of childrenin foster care are also in special education (Goerge,VanVoorhis, Grant, Casey, & Robinson, 1992). In aprospective study, Perez andWidom (1994) foundthat the effects of maltreatment on cognitive functioning and reading ability persist even into youngadulthood. Indeed, that children in foster careachieve poor educational outcomes because of abuseand neglect has become a cause celebre, with callsfor practice reform in child welfare agencies in manymunicipalities and nations (Canada NewsWire,2001; Considine & Zappala, 2001; HHS;Wulczyn,Harden, & Goerge, 1997). Schools, however, can-NCCC Code: 1532-8759/05 3.00 2005 National Association of Sociai Workersnot wait for these changes.The educational performance of maltreated children creates additionalconsequences with which schools themselves mustcontend. For example, schools in Chicago with ahigh proportion of maltreated children living infoster care have unusually poor performance andan exceptional likelihood of being reorganized forfailure to meet the minimum standards for studentprogress on standardized tests (personal communication with Anthony Bryk, Marshall Field IV professor in sociology and director of the Center forSchool Improvement University of Chicago, December?, 2001; Gladden, 2003).The studies on the relationship between childmaltreatment and cognitive or academic performance have not been unequivocal. At least onestudy found that differences in cognitive abilitybetween maltreated and nonmaltreated childrendisappeared when socioeconomic status was controUed (Nightingale & Walker, 1991). That is, because children who are maltreated are much morelikely to be poor (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996)—and poor children fare worse on standardized academic tests (McLloyd, 1998)—the finding of pooracademic performance by maltreated youths could197
be spurious. Maltreated children may need compensatory education, but otherwise have unexceptional educational performance.Given the large body of knowledge making theconnection that child maltreatment is related tolow academic functioning, it is important to recognize the numerous mechanisms through which theassociation may operate. Conditions setting a childup for poor cognitive and academic functioningmay have genetic and prenatal beginnings. Poorintrauterine environment, such as that caused bymothers' addictions and those receiving little or nomedical intervention throughout their pregnancy,has been proven a precursor to impaired cognitivefunctioning (Bada et al., 2002). Children also mayinherit impulsivity, which imposes some limitationson learning, and if their parents also suffer low cognitive functioning, such a circumstance may affectthe ability to provide adequate parenting (Levy, Hay,McStephen,Wood, &Waldman, 1997; Plomin, Price,Eley, Dale, & Stevenson, 2002). Furthermore, chaotic, violent, and impoverished postnatal conditionsthat make parenting and learning difficult couldalso mutually determine maltreatment and learning problems (Beckwith, Howard, Espinosa, &Tyler,1999).These mechanisms are not, of course, mutually exclusive.Maltreatment comes in many forms. Most typesof maltreatment, especially physical abuse, may havea direct independent effect on emotional and behavioral dysfunction, which interfere with a child'sability to learn. The mechanism may act throughmodification of neural development, which influences attention span, behavior, and informationprocessing (for example, De Bellis, 2001; Perry &Pollard, 1998). Alternatively, maltreatment—particularly neglect—may lead to children not receivingthe necessary nutrition, stimulation, and experiencefor optimal cognitive development.Yet another mechanism may arise from the effect of maltreatment on children's behavior. Maltreated children are significantly more likely thantheir nonmaltreated peers to exhibit a wide rangeof problem behaviors, including aggression, poorpeer relations, and emotion dysregulation (Dodge,Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Lansford et al., 2002;Trupin,Tarico, Low,Jemelka, & McClellan, 1993; Wolfe,1999). As a result of these behavior problems, maltreated children are more likely to receive schooldisciplinary referrals and suspensions (Eckenrodeet al., 1993). In addition, maltreated children tend198to be less engaged in academic work, and this disengagement partially mediates the relationship between maltreatment and academic maladjustment(Shonk&Cicchetti, 2001).Understanding the relationship between childmaltreatment and cognitive and academic functioning is important. It will drive increased collaboration between schools and child welfare agenciesfor child welfare system (CWS)-involved children.Of all professional or nonprofessional groups, educators are the single largest source of child abusereports; they initiated more than 280,000 reportsin 2001 (HHS, 2003). Most of these children remained in their homes and at the same schools following investigation; only about 11 percent wereplaced into foster care (HHS). Salient informationabout which subgroups of maltreated children aremost likely to have poor academic performancecould help teachers more accurately appraise theimpact of abuse on children (Yanowitz, Monte, &Tribble, 2003). Such information could also helpto explain the established patterns, such as high levelsof participation in special education (Goerge et al.,1992), poor academic performance, and high dropout rates (Barth, 1990; Cook, 1997) among children in the child welfare system. More broadly, thisanalysis could illuminate the possible contributionof child maltreatment to the lesser academic achievement of children who are poor or who have behavior problems.The current study had three main goals: (1) tocompare the performance of maltreated childrenon standardized tests of cognitive and academicfunctioning to national norms; (2) to examine howcognitive and academic functioning is related toindividual risk factors; (3) to determine whetherthe cumulative presence of risk factors helps predict which children are most likely to exhibit lowcognitive and academic functioning.METHODSampleThe children in the study were participants in theNational Survey of Child and Adolescent WeilBeing (NSCAW),a nationally representative sampleof children who have been reported to child welfare services because of alleged maltreatment andwhose reports resulted in a child welfare servicesinvestigation.The entire NSCAW sample includes5,504 children age 0 through 15 years.The samplewas selected from 92 probability sampling units inChildren &SchookVOLUME 27, NUMBER 4OCTOBER 2005
ing, mathematics, writing, and factual knowledgein science, social studies, and humanities (Woodcock et al., 1994). NSCAW administered only thereading and mathematics tests. The standard scalescores are based on a mean of 100 with a standarddeviation of 15. Internal consistency is high acrossall age groups as indicated by medians for reading(.94), and mathematics (.93). In our sample, thereading and math alpha coefficients were lower at.74 and .61 respectively.Child Behavior Checklist. The CBCL was "designed to provide standardized descriptions of behavior rather than diagnostic inferences"(Achenbach, 1991, p. iii) about competencies, problem behaviors, and other problems. Responses tothe 113 items are rated on a three-point LikertMeasurestype scale ranging from 0 not true to 2 veryCognitive functioning was assessed using thetrue or often true. A total problems score is derivedKaufinan Brief IntelligenceTest (K-BIT) (Kaufinanfrom the total of the syndromes and other prob& Kaufinan, 1990). Academic achievement was aslems items (Achenbach). Children were classifiedsessed using the Woodcock-McGrew-Werder Minias having clinical or borderline problem behaviorsBattery of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, &if their total problems score was higher than 60.Werder, 1994) in reading (MBA Reading) andAn adjunct to the CBCL, the Teacher's Reportmathematics (MBA Math). Socioemotional funcForm (TRF), was administered to the teachers (extioning was measured by current caregiver reportcluding home school instructors) of study particifrom the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)pants. With similar response scales as the CBCL,(Achenbach, 1991). Information regarding maltreatthis instrument gathered teachers' reports ofment characteristics was collected using a modifiedchildren's academic performance, adaptive functionMaltreatment Classification System (Barnett, Manly,ing, and behavioral and emotional problems. The& Cicchetti, 1993).The modifications were madebehavioral items concern school behaviors thatto structure the data collection on the basis of inteachers would observe, such as difficulty followterviews with the child welfare workers, guided bying directions, thinking and attention problems;case records, rather than just on the case recorddisturbing other pupils or disrupting class discipline;review.Kaufman Brief IntelligenceTest. The K-BIT is a and acting aggressively or altogether withdrawn.Teachers rate the child for how true each item wasbrief, individually administered measure of verbalwithin the past two months.and nonverbal intelligence.Verbal items assess wordknowledge and verbal concept formation. Matrices (nonverbal) items assess ability to perceive relaProcedurestionships and complete analogies. The K-BIT IQThe procedures had three main components: childComposite score, combining verbal and matricesinterview and assessment, current caregiver interwas used. The standardized scale for this measureview, and child welfare worker interview. AU of thehas a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.measures used in the current study were collectedInternal consistency is high with an average of .94at wave 1 of the NSCAW study.(Kaufinan & Kaufinan, 1990). In our study, the alThe Child Interview and Assessment. Thepha coefficients were .76 for verbal and .79 forNSCAW Child Instrument was designed for admatrices. Test-retest reliability for 13- to 19-yearministration to all children, although the interviewolds has been reported as high as .93 (Kaufinan &protocol varied depending on the age of the child.Kaufinan).For school-age children and adolescents, the interviews focused on a range of issues related to theWoodcock-McGrew-Werder Mini-Battery ofAchievement. The MBA is a brief, wide-range test participant's experience and current functioning.For the current study, however, only the tests ofof basic skills and knowledge, including tests of read-36 states; the sampling methodology is described inmore detail in NSCAW Research Group (2001).The sample for the current study included only theschool-age (six to 15 years) participants who completed the cognitive and academic measures {N 2,498) .The mean age of participants was 10.1 years{SE 2.7).The sample was 53 percent female (n 1,324).The sample was racially diverse: 45 percentof the participants identified as white, 30 percent asAfrican American, 16 percent as Hispanic American, and 8 percent as being of other racial and ethnic groups. (These "other" race/ethnicity childrenwere largely excluded from these analyses becauseinterpreting the findings would be quite difficult.)CROZIER AND BARTH / Cognitive and Academic Functioning in Malmated Children199
cognitive ability and academic achievement wereused.The Current Caregiver Interview. The NSCAWCurrent Caregiver Instrument was designed foradministration at baseline and at each yearly waveto the child's permanent or nonpermanent caregiver.Nonpermanent caregivers included formal fosterparents, kin foster parents, and informal foster caregivers. The current caregiver interview capturedinformation about the child, the caregiver, experiences with CWS, and contextual factors such asthe home and community environment. For thecurrent study, the CBCL was used to assess participants' current level of behavior problems.The ChildWelfareWorker Interview. Child welfare workers were asked their opinion of the levelof risk to the child at the time the investigation wasconducted as well as the investigator's decisionmaking process during the investigation. Interviewers collected information about the investigationof the report of maltreatment that led to the child'sinclusion in the NSCAW and the level of risk tothe child from the primary or secondary caregivers.The instrument inquired about prior history withchild welfare services and caregiver mental healthproblems, which were used as risk factors in thecurrent study. In addition, information gatheredfrom the caseworker was used to classify childrenaccording to maltreatment type based on a modified version of the Maltreatment Classification System (Barnett et al., 1993).Analyses of NSCAW data, with its complex sampling design and clustering, required the use ofSUDAAN —a specialized software program usedin surveys to obtain correctly weighted parameterestimates and adjusted standard errors that result inaccurate tests of significance.RESULTSThe mean K-BIT score was 93.2 {SE 0.90) (Tablel).The mean MBA reading score was 98.2 (SE 0.85).The mean MBA math score was 92.1 {SE 0.85). To compare the performance of children inthe current sample to national norms, the percentage of students scoring 85 or lower was calculated.This corresponds to one standard deviation (15)below the mean (100) of the standardized scale. Ifthe scores in the current sample were distributedsimilarly to the standardization sample then wewould expect 15.9 percent of the sample to scoreat least one standard deviation below the mean.2OOTable 1: Demographic Distribution andEstimated Group Means and StandardErrors for Intelligence and Academic TestsSample Size (unweighted)'2,498""TKUJsm 1DemographicsFemalei White non-Hispanic1:]:African American non-HispanicHispanic7Other race/ethnicityMean ag,eAcademic and Intelligence Test Scoresi Mean K-BIT,:1 Mean MBA readingi Mean MBA math53 (2.0)46 (3.2)30 (3.1)16 (3.1)8 (.8)10.1 yeaxs (2.7)93.2 (.90)98.2 (.85)92.1 (.85)Notes: K-BIT Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman S Kaufman, 1990); MBA Woodcock-McGrew-Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement (Woodcock. McGrew,S Werder, 1994).*AII statistics are computed with weighted data.Slightly more than one-third (33.9 percent, n 847) of the children in the current sample scoredone standard deviation or more below the mean onthe K-BIT. About 30.5 percent (n 762) scoredequally low on the MBA reading test, and 43.7percent (n 1,092) scored similarly low on theMBA math test. Thus, compared with nationalnorms children in the current study were 2.13 timesas likely to score a standard deviation below themean or lower on the K-BIT; 1.92 times as likelyto score that low on the MBA reading test; and2.75 times as likely to score that low on the MBAmath test.To examine whether the age of the child wasrelated to obtaining a low score on cognitive andacademic tests, the sample was divided into twogroups (see Table 2).The first group included sixto-11-year-olds, and the second group included 12to-16-year-olds.The percentage of children in theyounger group scoring 85 or lower on the cognitive and academic tests was 32.6 percent (n 814)for the K-BIT, 32.9 percent (n 822) for MBAreading, and 42.4 percent (n 1, 059) for MBAmath (Table 2) .The percentages for the older groupwere 36.7 (n 917) for the K-BIT, 25.4 {n 634)for MBA reading, and 46.4 percent (n 1,159) forMBA math.The percentages were not significantlydifferent between the two age groups, although amarginally significant relationship was found between age and low score on the MBA reading testChildren & Schools VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4OCTOBER 2005
Table 2: Percentage of ChildrenObtaining Scores of 85 or Lower onCognitive and Academic Measures, byGender, Age, Race/Ethnicity, andPrimary Maltreatment TypeK-airvariable""ItMBAReadingMBAMath,i2 IH2GirlsAge 42.427.443.840.846.4-f *WhiteAfrican American24.7***39.8***Hispanic American49.3***29.936.634.8***39.3Physical abuse33.327.138.8Sexual t type:36.743 344.1NeglectI Other50.8,45.845.9,43.6Notes: Chi-square tests were calculated for each demographic factor. K-BIT Kaufman Brief Inteliigence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman. 1990); MBA « WoodcockMcGrew-Werder MiniBanery of Achievement (Woodcock. McGrew. S Werder.1994). Standard errors are avaiiable from the authors, but are omitted forsimplicity.[X (JV 2,498) 2.S6,p .09].This finding provides some evidence that younger children weremore likely to score in the low range than olderchildren.The study also assessed the relation of gender toperformance on the cognitive and academic measures. For boys, 32.1 percent (n 377) obtained an85 or lower on the K-BIT, 31.2 percent {n 366)scored in that range on the N4BA reading test, and43.3 percent (n 508) scored in that range on theMBA math test (Table 2). For girls, 36.7 percent (n 486) scored in the low range on the K-BIT, 29.8percent {n 394) scored in the low range on theMBA reading test, and 44.1 percent (« 584) scoredin the low range on the MBA math test. Genderwas not significantly related to scores in the lowrange on any of the tests administered in this study.We also examined the relation of race and ethnicity to performance on the cognitive and academic measures. The percentage of children scoring 85 or lower on the K-BIT, MBA reading, andMBA math tests is shown in Table 2. Chi-squaretests indicated that race/ethnicity was significantlyrelated to low scores on the K-BIT [x 23.31, p .001] but was not related to reading or mathachievement.Another goal of the study was to determinewhether the type of maltreatment experienced byparticipants was related to cognitive and academicfunctioning. The percentage of children scoringlower than 85 on the cognitive and academic measures was calculated for each of the four maltreatment groups: physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect,and"other" forms of maltreatment. Chi-square testsindicated that maltreatment type was not significantly related to obtaining a low score on the cognitive or academic measures.The link offiverisk factors (family poverty, priorinvolvement with child welfare services, caregivermental health problems, and the two measures ofchnical behavior problems) to poor performanceon the cognitive and academic measures was firstexamined using a series of chi-square tests (seeTable3). Children in families with household incomesbelow the federal poverty level were significantlymore likely to score below 85 on the K-BIT \x {N 2, 498) 12.99,;) .005], MBA reading [x' 5.62,;) .02], and MBA math [x 4.05,p .05].Children who had previously received child welfare services were more likely to score lower than85 on MBA reading [%' 4.27,;? .05] and MBAmath (x 12.25,;) .001) than children who hadnot previously received child welfare services. Children living with caregivers with reported mentalhealth problems were significantly more likely toscore low on MBA math [f 5.39, p .03] andmarginally more likely to score in the low range onMBA reading [x' 3.10,f .09]. Children whosecurrent caregivers reported a clinically significantlevel of behavior problems were marginally morelikely to score below 85 on the MBA math test [X 3.01,p .O9]. Children whose current teacherreported clinicaUy significant behavior problemswere significantly more likely to score below 85 onthe MBA math test \x 5.S9,p .02].Next, the five risk factors were analyzed to determine whether they exerted a cumulative impacton a child's academic and cognitive performance.As the number of risk factors present increased fixjmzero tofive,the percentage of children scoring lowerthan 85 on each test also increased (Table 4).Therelationship between number of risk factors presentCROZIER AND BARTH / Cognitive and Academic Functioning in Maltreated Children2OI
controlling for the K-BIT.This model was also significant (R2 ,07, Wald F 1767.97, p .001),showing that the effects of cumulative risk on reading were evident for children regardless of theirmeasured intelligence.Overall, the model for MBA math scores wasalso significant {R .38, Wald F 3248.65, p .001) (Table 5). Girls scored significantly higher thanboys (p 3.76). K-BIT score significantly predictedMBA math scores (P 0.83). Cumulative risk alsosignificantly predicted MBA math scores with apartial slope coefficient of-2.62. When the modelwas recalculated without controlling for K-BITscores, the overall model was stiU significant (R .08,Wald F 1859.58, p .001), and the relationship was even stronger for math than for reading.Table 3: Percentage of ChildrenObtaining Scores of 85 or Lower onCognitive and Academic Measures, byIndividual Risk Factors[Risk frjS .JRWITMBAa«adingMSA,Mattt39.1*Famiiy povertyPresent40.4***Not 5.2*:30.529.842.0*' Prior child welfare servicesPresentNot presentCaregiver mental healthproblemsPresentNot presentCBCL clinical behaviorproblemsPresentNot presentTRF clinical behaviorproblemsPresentNot present48.2*50.2***;38.1***Notes: Chi-square tests were calculated for each risk factor. K-BIT Kaufman BriefIntelligence Test (Kaufman S Kaufman, 1990); MBA Woodcock-UcGrew-WerderMini-Battery of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Werder, 1994). CBCL ChildBehavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991); TRF Teacher Report Form (of the ChildBehavior Checklist). Standard errors are available from the authors, but areomitted for simplicity. p .OS. p . 0 0 1 .and scoring below 85 on the test was significant forMBA reading [x2(N 2,498) 17.72,;) .01] andMBA math [x 37.66 p .001] and was marginally significant for the K-BIT [x 8.62, p .08].The effects of cumulative risk on scores on theMBA reading and MBA math tests were also examined using regression models that controlled forage, race/ethnicity, maltreatment type, and K-BITscore. The overall MBA reading model was againsignificant (R .46,Wald F 3212.08, f .001).Girls scored significantly higher than boys (P 3.37,p .01) and African American children scored significantly higher than white children (P 3.76,p .05) (Table 5).The K-BIT was a significant predictor of MBA reading with a partial slope coefficientof 0.83. Cumulative risk was again a significantpredictor of reading with a partial slope coefficientof-1.78. Given that cumulative risk may also affectreading achievement indirectly by affecting cognitive ability, the model was also examined without202DISCUSSIONThe results show that children in the NSCAWsample are not performing as weD as their nationwide peers on tests of cognitive and academicachievement. The children and adolescents in thestudy are more likely than normative samples toscore a standard deviation or more below the meanon standardized measures of cognitive functioningand academic achievement. On the standardizedmath test, nearly 44 percent of the NSCAW participants scored 85 or lower, 2.75 times higher thanthe expected percentage.Male and female participants scored equally below national standards, and such poor performanceheld constant when the sample was divided intoTable 4: Percentage of ChildrenObtaining Scores of 85 or Lower onCognitive and Academic Measures, byCumulative Number of Risk FactorsNutnlterofMBARii 5.3***56.7***Notes: Chi-square tests were calculated for each standardized measure. K-BIT Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990); MBA WoodcockMcGrew-Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement {Woodcock, McGrew, & Werder,1994). Standard errors are available from the authors, but are omitted forsimplicity. p .01. p .001.Children &SchoobVOLUME 27, NUMBER 4OCTOBER 2005
Table 5: Factors Predicting MBA Math and ReadingScores (Controlling for Cognitive Ability)MBA Math Suras' '.'JMpI SMimpg ScorestB .76(1.45)2.76(1.68)2.60*1.642.31 (1.84)-0.23 (1.71)0.40 (2.95)-0.32 (0.22)0.131.440.88 (1.76)-0.37 (0.26)1.250.170.501.410.05 (2.55)-0.51 (1.10)0.02Neglect0.46-3.45 (2.63)-168(1.54)1.09Other maltreatment-1.34(1.75)0.77-1 52 (2.68)Intercept22,31 (5.08)tGenderMale (reference group)FemaleRace/ethnicity;White non—Hispanic (reference group) ;'; African American non-HispanicHispanicOtherAgeMaltreatment typePhysical abuse (reference group)Sexual abuse1.31.0.57Other covariatesK-BITCumulative risk0.83 (0.05)-1.78 (0.50)17.94***3.560.83 (.05)-2.62 (0.75)16.65***3.50Notes: For gender, male o 0 and female a 1. K-BIT a Kaufman I Irief Intelligence Test (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990); MIBA Woodcocic-McGrew-Werder Mini-Batteiy ofAchievement (Woodcock. McSrew. i Werder, 1994).*p .05. **p .Ot. ***p .001.older and younger children. The results show thatneither gender nor any age group shields childrenfrom the effect of maltreatment on cognitive andacademic functioning. Race and ethnicity, on theother hand, were related to performance on thestandardized measures. African American and Hispanic students were more likely than white children to obtain low scores. These findings are consistent with studies examining the relation of raceand ethnicity to standard test scores (McLloyd,1998).Given earlier evidence showing that neglect canhave a profound impact on cognitive and academicperformance (Perry, Pollard, Blakley, Baker, &Vigilante, 1995), children whose primary maltreatmenttype was neglect were expected to obtain the lowest scores on the cognitive and academic measures.This expectation runs counter to what teachers havereported as their expectation—that physical abuseand emotional abuse have the strongest relationship to academic failure (Crenshaw, Crenshaw, &Lichtenberg, 1995). In this study,children reportedto suffer the various maltreatment types did notdiffer in terms of their likelihood of scoring a stan-dard deviation or more below the mean on thecognitive and academic measures. Furthermore,none of the regression models found an effect ofmaltreatment type on test scores.The finding of no difference in achievement bymaltreatment type is intriguing and may representdifferent mechanisms by which maltreatment suppresses learning. It is also possible that in past research, children with multiple forms of maltreatment may have obscured the independent effectsof individual types of maltreatment.Yet, fewer thanone in four children in this study were indicated asexperiencing multiple types of maltreatment,making this an unlikely explanation for the lackof difference.When thefiverisk factors examined in this studywere considered individually, poverty emerged assignificantly related to obtaining low scores on allof the standardized measures. Children living in poorfamilies were 1.5 times more likely than nonpoorchildren to obtain low scores on the K-BIT, 1.4times more likely to obtain low scores on the MBAreading test, and 1.2 times more likely to obtainlow scores on the MBA math test. Yet, even theCROZIER AND BARTH / Cognitive and Academic Functioning in Maltreated Children203
nonpoor children in the NSCAW sample weregenerally more likely than the national norm toobtain low scores on the cognitive and academicmeasures. For instance, compared with nationalnorms nonpoor children in the NSCAW samplewere 1.7 times more Ukely to obtain low scores onthe K-BIT, 1.6 times more likely to obtain lowscores on the MBA reading test, and 2.5 times morelikely to obtain low scores on the MBA math test.Therefore, maltreatment appears to exert an effecton functioning that is somewhat independent offamily poverty. This finding should be understoodwithin the context that many of the "nonpoor"children in the study are still living in financiallydistressed households even though they are notbelow the poverty rate.Other risk factors were not as robusdy related toacademic and cognitive functioning, although priorhistory of child welfare services was significantlyassociated with obtaining low scores on both theMBA reading and math tests.This indicates that themany families with repeated involvement
medical intervention throughout their pregnancy, has been proven a precursor to impaired cognitive functioning (Bada et al., 2002). Children also may inherit impulsivity, which imposes some limitations on learning, and if their parents also suffer low cog-nitive functioning, such a circumstance may affect
indicated that the most effective interventions are those that use cognitive-behavioral techniques to improve mental functioning. Cognitive-behavioral treatments have become a dominant therapy in clinical psychology, and analyses of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders have come to positive conclusions. Chapter 2: What is Cognitive .
The Allen Cognitive Level Screen (ACLS) can help you identify the Allen Cognitive Levels of clients with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and other cognitive disabilities. Also referred to as the leather lacing tool, this cognitive assessment tool measures global cognitive processing capaci
Writing Difficulty/Academic Area of Impact.29. REVIEWED AUGUST 2021 Cognitive Functioning & Psychological Processing / Special Education / SDE / 4 . Basic Reading and Reading Comprehension Difficulty/Academic Area of Impact.40 Basic Reading and Reading Comprehension Strategies .
Cognitive Priming and Cognitive Training: Immediate and Far Transfer to Academic Skills in Children Bruce E. Wexler1, Markus Iseli2, Seth Leon2, William Zaggle3, Cynthia Rush4, Annette Goodman5, A. Esat Imal1 & Emily Bo2 Cognitive operations are supported by dynamically reconguring neural systems that integrate
32 Multia-KialAssessment Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale Consider psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hyporhetical conrinuum of mental healtl-r-illness.Do not include impairment in functioning due ro physical (or environmenral) limitations. Code (Nore: Use imennediate
Cognitive science and the Conceptual foundations of Cognitive-behavioral therapy: viva la evolution! 74 Rick E. Ingram and Greg J. Siegle chaPTEr 4. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychotherapy integration 94 T. Mark Harwood, Larry E. Beutler, and Mylea Charvat ParT ii. aSSESSmEnT conSidEraTionS chaPTEr 5. Cognitive assessment: issues and .
Cognitive Radio, Software Defined Radio, and Adaptive Wireless Systems, Arslan. Cognitive Networks, Mahmoud. Cognitive Radio Communications and Networks, Wyglinski. Cognitive Radio Technology, Fette. Cognitive Radio Architecture, Mitola. -16 May 2013 1213 AN D R E A F . C AT T O N I PHD COURSE “CRS AND CNS: THEORY
runout inspection according to DIN 3960/62 or AGMA 2000 (or other standards), the exact measurement and determination of the APEX point of herringbone gears, with a comprehensive evaluation software package, en-sures a final quality certification. KAPP NILES Callenberger Str. 52 96450 Coburg, Germany Phone: 49 9561 866-0 Fax: 49 9561 866-1003 E-Mail: info@kapp-niles.com Internet: www.kapp .
