39 Impact of semantics on word decoding 2 counted afterwards. The reliability differs per age but is at least .77 (Kort et al., 2005a). Fourth, during “Comprehension,” the experimenter asked questions about social situations or common concepts. Based on the manual, the child received zero, one, or two points for each item. Testing was terminated after four consecutive mistakes. All points were counted afterwards. The reliability differs per age but is at least .73 (Kort et al., 2005a). Kaufman (1975) already showed that these four measures together form a factor named “verbal comprehension.” To confirm this factor within this specific group a principal component analysis with varimax rotation on all subtests of WISC‐IIINL is added. This showed a four‐factor distinction, together explaining 75.79% of variance in intelligence measures. The first factor included semantic abilities (information .810, similarities .807, vocabulary .874, and comprehension .839), the second factor visual spatial abilities (block design .847, visual puzzles .772, incomplete drawings .583, and pictures organization .492), the third factor working memory (digit span forwards .648 and digit span backwards .745), and the fourth factor processing speed (substitution .914 and symbol search .931). To make the impact of all variables equal in this research, factor scores were not included in the analyses. Perceptual organization Perceptual organization was measured by adding the z‐scores of four subtests from the WISC‐IIINL (Kort et al., 2005a). First, during “Incomplete drawings,” the child has to name or point at a missing part in a drawing of familiar objects or situations within 30 seconds. Testing was terminated after five consecutive mistakes. The child received one point for each correctly named missing part. All points were counted afterwards. The reliability differs per age but is at least .54 (Kort et al., 2005a). Second, during “Picture arrangement,” the child has to put pictures in the right order to make the story depict right. The child was asked to do this as quickly as possible. Testing was terminated after three consecutive mistakes. The first two items are scored two points at first attempt and one point at second attempt. The other items were given zero, two, three, four or five points based on accuracy and the time the child needs to order the pictures. All points were counted afterwards. The reliability differs per age but is at least .65 (Kort et al., 2005a). Third, during “Block design,” the child had to reconstruct patters of two, four, and later nine blocks shown on a picture. The child was asked to do this as quickly as possible. Testing was terminated after two consecutive mistakes. The first three items are scored two points at first attempt and one point at second attempt. The other items were given four, five, six, or seven points based on accuracy and the time the child needs to reconstruct the pattern. All points were counted afterwards. The reliability differs per age but is at least .71 (Kort et al., 2005a). Fourth, during “Visual puzzles,” the child has to make five puzzles of everyday objects. Testing was terminated after four consecutive mistakes. Each right connection between puzzle pieces was given one point. Extra
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw