Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volume 41 Number 3
May/June 2008 251-262
© 2008 Hammill Institute on
Working Memory and Learning in Children Disabilities
10.1177/0022219408315815

With Developmental Coordination Disorder http://journaloflearningdisabilities

.sagepub.com
hosted at
and Specific Language Impairment http://online.sagepub.com

Tracy Packiam Alloway

Durham University
Lisa Archibald
University of Western Ontario

The authors compared 6- to 11-year-olds with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and those with specific language
impairment (SLI) on measures of memory (verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory) and learning (reading
and mathematics). Children with DCD with typical language skills were impaired in all four areas of memory function for
their age level, and this pattern was also found to be characteristic of a larger DCD group with varied language abilities.
SLI-group deficits in standard scores were observed for the verbal versions of the short-term and working memory tasks
only. There were also differential links between memory and attainment between the two groups, with visuospatial working
memory strongly related to numeracy in the SLI group and all of the memory measures correlated with at least one attain-
ment measure in the DCD group. Reasons for why working memory contributes to learning in these two developmental
groups are discussed.

Keywords: working memory; learning; developmental coordination disorder; specific language impairment

T he extent to which deficits in specific cognitive

mechanisms may underlie developmental disorders
is a matter of considerable interest in the fields of cogni-
tion and cognitive development. The functioning of the
working memory system has been implicated in groups
of children with marked learning difficulties, such as
learning disabilities (e.g., Alloway et al., 2005; Swanson
& Saez, 2003), reading impairments (Gathercole,
Alloway, Willis & Adams, 2006), and specific language
impairment (SLI; e.g., Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a).
To date, however, no studies have provided a comparison
of working memory profiles in children with different
developmental pathologies, and it was the purpose of the
present study to do so. The comparison groups repre-
sented children with impairments predominantly affect-
ing either language or motor skills: SLI, an impairment
disproportionately affecting language skills, and devel-
opmental coordination disorder (DCD; also known as
motor dyspraxia), characterized by difficulties with motor
coordination. The extent to which deficits in subcompo-
nents of working memory may differentiate these groups
was explored by measuring skills systematically across
the verbal and visuospatial domains.
SLI in children is an unexpected failure to develop lan-
guage at the usual rate, despite normal general intellectual
abilities, sensory functions, and environmental exposure
to language. It is a relatively common developmental
condition, estimated to occur in approximately 7% of
kindergarten children (Tomblin et al., 1997), and is more
prevalent in male than female children (e.g., Choudhury &
Benasich, 2003; Flax et al., 2003). Affected children have
the greatest problems in learning word forms and the
grammatical structure of language, with the acquisition
of semantics and pragmatics relatively spared (Leonard,
1998). Although the difficulties disproportionately affect
the verbal domain, deficits in more general skills such as
processing speed (Miller, Kail, Leonard, & Tomblin,
2001) and hypothesis testing (e.g., Ellis Weismer, 1991;
Nelson, Kamhi & Apel, 1987) have been reported. In
addition, it is widely acknowledged that individuals with
SLI commonly experience learning difficulties of a com-
parable magnitude across all scholastic domains, includ-
ing mathematics (Arvedson, 2002; Donlan & Gourlay,
1999; Fazio, 1996) and literacy (Bishop & Adams, 1990;
Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Flax et al., 2003).
Authors’ Note: We would like to thank Susan Gathercole for valu-
able comments made to an earlier version of this article. We also wish
to extend our gratitude to the primary schools and children who par-
ticipated in this research.

251
252 Journal of Learning Disabilities
DCD is characterized by marked motor impairment
that affects functioning in daily activities in the absence
of intellectual or neurological dysfunction (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994). Observable behaviors in
children with DCD include clumsiness, poor posture,
confusion about which hand to use, difficulties throwing
or catching a ball, reading and writing difficulties, and an
inability to hold a pen or pencil properly. The estimated
prevalence of DCD in children ages 5 to 11 years is
about 6% (Mandich & Polatajko, 2003), with more male
than female children being affected. As with SLI, sub-
stantial heterogeneity exists in the cognitive profiles of
children with DCD, with some researchers suggesting
that comorbidity is so widespread in DCD as to be the
norm rather than the exception (Kaplan, Wilson, Dewey, &
Crawford, 1998; Piek & Dyck, 2004; Wilson, 2005). The
common occurrence of concomitant language impair-
ments with DCD (e.g., Hill, 2001; Visser, 2003) has led
to the suggestion that linguistic difficulties may underlie
some of the learning problems experienced by children
with DCD (Visser, 2003).
Although these developmental disorders are distin-
guished by the domain of principal deficit, they are both
associated with significant learning difficulties. A key
contributing factor in learning during development is
working memory abilities (e.g., Alloway, Gathercole,
Adams, et al., 2005; Gathercole, et al., 2006; Swanson &
Sachse-Lee, 2001). Working memory is the capacity to
store and manipulate information over brief periods of
time (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Just & Carpenter, 1992).
Extensive research over the past three decades has estab-
lished that working memory is not a single store but a
memory system composed of separable interacting com-
ponents. Functioning in concert, these components pro-
vide a kind of flexible mental workspace that can be used
to maintain and transform information in the course of
demanding cognitive activities.
There are several theoretical accounts of working mem-
ory. In the present study, we used Baddeley and Hitch’s
(1974) model of working memory (see also Baddeley,
2000), which is widely used in both developmental and
adult samples (e.g., Alloway, Gathercole, Willis & Adams,
2004; Baddeley, 1996). According to this model, there are
separable components for the temporary storage of verbal
and visuospatial information: the phonological loop and
the visuospatial sketchpad, respectively. A centralized
component is responsible for coordinating the flow of
information between these storage systems and the tem-
porary activation of long-term memory. The central exec-
utive also functions as a mental workspace involved in the
temporary storage and manipulation of information
needed in the execution of complex cognitive tasks, such
as learning, reasoning, and comprehension.
In recent years, standard methods of assessing both
verbal and visuospatial aspects of working memory have
been developed and validated. Two tests, the Working
Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C; Pickering
& Gathercole, 2001) and the Automated Working
Memory Assessment (AWMA; Alloway, 2007a), provide
multiple measures of subcomponents of working mem-
ory standardized for children ages 4 to 11 years. Tasks
tapping the temporary storage of the phonological loop
and visuospatial sketchpad require the serial retention
of either phonological information such as digits (e.g.,
Conrad & Hull, 1964) or visuospatial material such as
visual patterns (e.g., Smyth & Scholey, 1996). Working
memory is typically assessed using complex memory
span paradigms that impose demands for both temporary
storage and significant processing activity with selected
task components varied across domains. An example of
a verbal complex span task is reading span, in which a
participant is asked to make a meaning-based judgment
about each of a series of sentences and then remember
the last word of each sentence in sequence (Daneman &
Carpenter, 1980). A corresponding visuospatial task is
spatial span, in which a participant is asked to judge the
orientation of a set of letters and then remember the
sequence of degrees of rotation of the letters (Shah &
Miyake, 1996).
Working memory skills can explain individual differ-
ences in learning. Poor performance on working memory
measures is characteristic of children failing to progress
normally in the areas of reading (e.g., De Jong, 1998;
Swanson, 1994), mathematics (e.g., Bull & Scerif, 2001;
Mayringer & Wimmer, 2000; Passolunghi & Siegel, 2001;
Siegel & Ryan, 1989), and language comprehension
(e.g., Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crain, & Snowling, 1999;
Seigneuric, Ehrlich, Oakhill, & Yuill, 2000). There are
also links between performance on tasks measuring
phonological loop capacity of working memory and vocab-
ulary acquisition (for a review, see Baddeley, Gathercole,
& Papagno, 1998). Associations have been reported as
well between measures of the visuospatial sketchpad
component of working memory and mental arithmetic
(Lee & Kang, 2002; McLean & Hitch, 1999).
Associations between working memory abilities and
learning have also been found in children with special
educational needs. In particular, children experiencing
learning difficulties that are sufficiently severe to warrant
special education provision have been found to per-
form very poorly on measures of working memory
(Alloway, Gathercole, Willis, & Adams, 2005; Gathercole
& Pickering, 2001; Pickering & Gathercole, 2004). In a
recent study of children with deficits in literacy and
numeracy, Gathercole et al. (2006) found that perfor-
mance on verbal working memory tasks is not mediated

by other associated cognitive skills and that it taps an
ability that is uniquely linked with learning abilities. This
is consistent with the view that verbal working memory
is not just a proxy for IQ and is supported by related
research on learning disabilities, verbal working memory,
and IQ (e.g., Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004; Siegel &
Ryan, 1989).
Working memory functioning has been investigated in
some detail in SLI. Deficits in phonological loop capac-
ity in SLI have been widely reported in studies of non-
word repetition (e.g., Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2001;
Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Edwards & Lahey, 1998;
Ellis Weismer et al., 2000; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990),
as well as studies using more conventional verbal short-
term memory measures, such as serial recall of digits or
words (Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a; Graham, 1980;
Wiig & Semel, 1976). Age-appropriate performance, on
the other hand, has been reported for SLI groups on visu-
ospatial storage tasks (Archibald & Gathercole, 2006a,
2006b). Children with SLI have also been found to be
impaired on working memory tasks involving the storage
and processing of verbal (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole;
2006a; Ellis Weismer, Evans, & Hesketh, 1999) but not
visuospatial information (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole,
2006; Bavin, Wilson, Maruff, & Sleeman, 2005). This
dissociation has been explained in light of evidence that
performance decrements occur only when the task addi-
tionally taps the impaired phonological but not preserved
visuospatial storage abilities (Archibald & Gathercole,
2007). However children with SLI are slower than typi-
cally developing peers in completing the processing portion
of both verbal and visuospatial working memory tasks.
With respect to children with DCD, there is emerging
evidence that they have a specific deficit in visuospatial
memory (e.g., Alloway, 2006; Alloway & Temple, 2007).
This deficit can be understood in light of research indi-
cating that visuospatial skills are linked with movement
planning and control (e.g., Quinn, 1994; Smyth, Pearson,
& Pendleton, 1988). For example, Smyth et al. (1988)
found that participants’ retention of simple movements
in sequence was comparable with their retention of verbal
information, indicating that visuospatial memory paral-
lels verbal memory. This is consistent with the view that
certain aspects of visuospatial working memory overlap
with cognitive resources allocated to generating move-
ment (e.g., Duff & Logie, 1999). Visuospatial memory
skills in children with DCD have been linked to learning.
A recent study comparing DCD children with high and
low visuospatial memory skills found that children with
low visuospatial memory skills performed significantly
worse than children with high visuospatial memory
skills in literacy and numeracy, even when IQ was taken
Alloway, Archibald / DCD and SLI 253
into account (Alloway, 2007b). The unique link between
visuospatial memory skills and learning suggests that the
processing demands of the working memory tasks and
the active motor component reflected in the visuospatial
memory tasks both play a crucial role in learning in
children with DCD.
The current work represents one of the first compar-
isons of working memory and learning in children with
DCD and those with SLI. Because one of the criteria for
DCD included in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) is “sig-
nificant difficulties with motor coordination, which affects
their academic achievement” (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994), these children often perform worse
than age-matched controls on measures of literacy, such as
reading, writing, and spelling (e.g., Dewey, Kaplan,
Crawford, & Wilson, 2002; Iversen, Berg, Ellertsen, &
Tonnessen, 2005). A longitudinal study confirmed that
children who are diagnosed with DCD at 7 years of age
are limited in their reading and comprehension levels by
the age of 10 (Kadesjo & Gillberg, 1999). As with other
atypical populations, such as children with poor reading
comprehension (Swanson & Berninger, 1995) and
children with persistent learning difficulties (Gathercole
et al., 2006), it may be that the learning difficulties of
children with DCD are associated with working memory
impairments. An alternative possibility is that deficits in
comorbid cognitive or language skills account for the per-
formance levels of children with DCD.
In this study, measures of verbal and visuospatial short-
term memory and verbal or visuospatial working memory
were completed by three groups of children: children with
SLI, an age-matched group of children with typically
developing language skills and DCD, and an unselected
group of children with DCD that also included children
with language impairments. Although the selection of a
DCD and typical language group provides an interesting
contrast to an SLI group, it was unknown whether a DCD
and typical language group would perform differently
than an unselected DCD group on the memory and learn-
ing measures included in the present study. One goal of
this study therefore was to compare the working memory
profiles of the two DCD groups. A second goal was to
compare the SLI and DCD and typical language groups.
Similar working memory profiles across groups would
favor an account emphasizing the commonalities between
these developmental disorders and suggesting that a gen-
eralized deficit may underlie both conditions (e.g., Hill,
2001; Visser, 2003). Findings of differential working
memory impairments would make an important contribu-
tion to understanding the cognitive mechanisms that may
give rise to domain-specific deficits.
254 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Method
Participants
Thirty-four children participated in three groups in the
present study: 11 children with SLI (7 boys, 4 girls), 11
chronologically age–matched children with DCD and
typical language skills (8 boys, 3 girls), and 12 additional,
unselected children with DCD (8 boys, 4 girls) partici-
pated in the present study. The mean ages of the groups
were as follows: SLI: 8 years 10 months (SD = 1.41
years, range = 6 years 9 months to 10 years 10 months);
DCD and typical language: 8 years 11 months (SD = 1.43
years, range = 6 years 11 months to 11 years 0 months);
unselected DCD: 8 years 6 months (SD = 1.64 years,
range = 5 years 0 months to 11 years 8 months). All
participants were native English speakers. None of the
children were diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder
or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spec-
trum disorder, or hearing impairment.
SLI group. The children in the SLI group were recruited
from language units in urban areas of the Northeast of
England over a 4-month period. All of the children met
SLI criteria consistent with those described by Records
and Tomblin (1994). They achieved standard scores of
85 or greater on a test of nonverbal reasoning (Raven’s
Coloured Matrices; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1986). In
addition, they performed at least 1.25 standard devia-
tions below the mean on two of four language measures,
including one receptive measure. The receptive measures
were the British Picture Vocabulary Scales, 2nd Edition
(BPVS-II; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Burley, 1997) and
the Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG; Bishop, 1982).
The expressive measures were the Expressive Vocabulary
Test (Williams, 1997) and the Recalling Sentences subtest
of Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–UK 3
(CELF-UK3; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 1995). It is worth
noting that although some of the language tests may have
minimal working memory demands, these tests are com-
monly used to identify language impairments and were
used for this purpose in the present study. None of
the children had motor difficulties as identified by the
Movement Assessment Battery Teacher Checklist
(Henderson & Sugden, 1996), completed by the partici-
pants’ classroom teachers.
DCD groups. The children with DCD also attended
schools in the Northeast of England and were referred by
an occupational therapist who had identified them as
experiencing motor difficulties using the DSM-IV criteria
for DCD (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and
standardized motor assessments such as the Movement
Assessment Battery for Children (Henderson & Sugden,
1992). The Movement Assessment Battery Teacher
Checklist (Henderson & Sugden, 1996), completed for
each participating child at the time of the present
study, confirmed the severity of the child’s movement
difficulties.
All 23 participants with DCD completed the BPVS-II
(Dunn et al., 1997) and the Recalling Sentences subtest
of the CELF-3UK (Semel et al., 1995), and 19 com-
pleted Raven’s Coloured Matrices (Raven et al., 1986)
and the TROG (Bishop, 1982). None of the children
experienced difficulty in performing these tasks as a
function of their motor impairments. From these, a group
of 11 children with DCD individually age matched with
participants in the SLI group who had achieved standard
scores of 85 or greater on Raven’s Coloured Matrices
and the BPVS-II were selected to form the DCD and typ-
ical language group.
Procedure
The measures reported here were completed in three or
four individual half-hour sessions in a quiet room in the
children’s schools. Because the aim of the present study
was to compare the performance of two groups, SLI and
DCD, standardized measures were used in all instances.
In addition to the language screening measures and non-
verbal ability test listed above, each child was also tested
first on a working memory assessment battery, followed
by attainment measures. The SLI group completed the
WMTB-C (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), as well as the
visuospatial working memory measures of the AWMA
(Alloway, 2007a), and the DCD groups completed the
AWMA. Additionally, both groups completed measures
of attainment in reading and mathematics. No more than
two standardized tests were completed in one session.
The subtest order recommended by the standardized test
was followed within each test.
The AWMA (Alloway, 2007a) was designed as an
automated equivalent of the WMTB-C (Pickering &
Gathercole, 2001) (see Note 1). Both tests provide mul-
tiple assessments of each of the three components of
Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) working memory model,
using tasks that have been validated as measures of each
component. The batteries include three measures of
verbal short-term memory (digit recall, word recall, and
nonword recall), three measures of visuospatial short-
term memory (block recall, mazes memory, and dot
matrix), and three verbal working memory measures
(backward digit recall, listening recall, and counting
recall), and the AWMA includes three visuospatial work-
ing memory measures (odd one out, Mr. X, and spatial
span). Both tests provide standardized scores, with a
mean value of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, for 4- to

11-year-olds (AWMA: Alloway, 2007a; WMTB-C:
Pickering & Gathercole, 2001).
Verbal short-term memory. The digit recall, word
recall, and nonword recall tests involve the presentation
of a sequence of digits, words, or nonwords that a child
is required to recall in correct serial order. Digit lists are
random constructions without replacement from the dig-
its ranging from 1 to 9, spoken at a rate of one digit per
second. The word lists are monosyllabic words with a
consonant-vowel-consonant structure, and no stimuli are
repeated. The nonwords have the same structure and
were created using the same pool of phonemes as the
words used in the word recall subtest. The words and
nonwords, which are spoken at a rate of one syllable per
second, must be recalled with full accuracy (i.e., with all
three phonemes correct) and in the correct serial posi-
tion. Credit was given for phoneme substitutions when
the substitution constituted the child’s habitual articula-
tion pattern for that phoneme.
Verbal working memory. In the backward digit recall
test, a child is required to recall a sequence of spoken dig-
its in reverse order. Test trials begin with two numbers and
increase by one number in each block until the child is
unable to recall four correct trials at a particular block. In
the listening recall task, a child is presented with a series of
spoken sentences (e.g., “Lions have four legs,” “Pineapples
play football”) and has to verify the sentence by stating
“true” or “false” and recall the final word for each sentence
in sequence. Test trials begin with one sentence and con-
tinue with additional sentences in each block until the child
is unable to recall three correct trials at a block. In the
counting recall test, a child is presented with a visual array
of red circles and blue triangles. He or she is required to
count the number of circles in an array and then recall the
tallies of circles in the arrays that were presented. The test
trial begins with one visual array and increases by an addi-
tional visual array in each block until the child is unable to
correctly recall four trials. Each visual array stayed on the
computer screen until the child indicated that he or she had
completed counting all the circles. The number of correct
trials was scored for each child.
Visuospatial short-term memory. In the block recall
test, the presenter taps a sequence of cubes with a finger
on a specifically designed board that has nine randomly
located cubes. The child’s task is to repeat the sequence
in the same order. Testing begins with a single block tap
and increases by one additional block. In the mazes mem-
ory test, the child views a two-dimensional line maze
with a path drawn through the maze. The same maze is
then shown to the child without the path, and the child is
Alloway, Archibald / DCD and SLI 255
asked to recall the path by drawing it on the maze. Each
maze is presented for 3 seconds. Maze complexity is
increased by adding additional walls to the maze. In the
dot matrix task, a sequence of red dots is presented on a
4 × 4 grid, and the child is required to point to the positions
of each dot that had appeared in the sequence in the same
order. Each dot appears for 2 seconds. The sequences
were random, with no location being highlighted more
than once within a trial.
Visuospatial working memory. In the odd one out task,
a child is presented with a horizontal row of three boxes
in which three complex shapes are presented. The child
points to the shape that does not match the others and
remembers its location. At the end of the trial, a blank set
of three boxes appears on the screen. The child points to
the boxes in which the odd shapes had appeared in the
correct order. The boxes always appear centered hori-
zontally on the screen, but at different positions along the
vertical axis to eliminate visual traces.
In the Mr. X task, a child is presented with a picture
of two Mr. X figures. The child identifies whether the
Mr. X with the blue hat is holding the ball in the same
hand as the Mr. X with the yellow hat. The Mr. X with
the blue hat may also be rotated. At the end of each trial,
the child has to recall the location of each ball in Mr. X’s
hand in sequence, by pointing to a picture with eight
compass points. Both the Mr. X figures and the compass
points stayed on the computer screen until the child pro-
vided a response.
In the spatial span task, a child views a picture of two
identical shapes in which the shape on the right has a red
dot on it. The child identifies whether the shape on the right
is the same or opposite of the shape on the left. The shape
with the red dot may also be rotated. At the end of each trial,
the child has to recall the location of each red dot on the
shape in sequence, by pointing to a picture with three com-
pass points. Both the shapes and the compass points stayed
on the computer screen until the child provided a response.
Attainment measures. Abilities in the areas of literacy
and numeracy were also tested. All participants completed
the basic reading and spelling subtests of the Wechsler
Objective Reading Dimensions (Wechsler, 1993), and the
numerical operations subtest of the Wechsler Objective
Numerical Dimensions (Wechsler, 1996).
Results
DCD Groups
Descriptive statistics for the DCD and typical language
and unselected DCD groups on the screening, attainment,
256 Journal of Learning Disabilities
and memory measures are shown in Table 1. Group mean
standard scores were within 1 standard deviation of the
mean for both groups on Raven’s Coloured Matrices, the
BPVS-II, and the TROG, and for the DCD and typical
language group on all of the attainment measures, and the
mazes memory subtest. Performance on the majority of the
memory measures was more than 1.25 standard deviations
below the standardized mean for both DCD groups.
Group means were remarkably similar across mea-
sures, with the greatest group differences occurring on
the receptive language measures (BPVS-II and TROG)
and visuospatial short-term and working memory mea-
sures (mazes memory, Mr. X, and spatial span). Consider
first the screening and attainment measures. In indepen-
dent t tests, the only significant group effect was found
for the BPVS-II, t(21) = 2.58, p = .02, as expected given
the selection criteria. The remaining comparisons were
nonsignificant: Raven’s Coloured Matrices, t(17) < 1;
TROG, t(21) = 1.79, p = .09; recalling sentences, t(21)
< 1; numerical operations, t(21) < 1; reading, t(21) < 1; and
spelling, t(21) = 1.11, p = .28. It is clear from these
results that although the DCD and typical language
group had superior receptive vocabulary skills, their per-
formance on a variety of cognitive, language, and attain-
ment measures was indistinguishable from that of other
children with DCD.
To minimize the number of group comparisons on the
memory measures, a multivariate analysis of variance was
completed on the composite scores (verbal short-term
memory, verbal working memory, visuospatial short-term
memory, and visuospatial working memory) as a function
of group. The overall group Hotelling’s T was nonsignifi-
cant, F(4, 18) = 0.65, p = .63, η2p = .13, and none of the
univariate comparisons approached significance (p > .12
in all cases). These results indicate that the working
memory profile of the DCD and typical language group
was not significantly different from that of other children
with DCD. Also of interest is the fact that although the
vocabulary skills of the groups differed, their performance
on the verbal memory measures was not unduly influ-
enced by language level.
DCD and Typical Language and SLI Groups
Descriptive statistics for children with DCD and typical
language and SLI on the screening, memory, and attainment
measures are shown in Table 1. Group mean standard
scores were within 1 standard deviation of the mean for
both groups on Raven’s Coloured Matrices and all of the
attainment measures, for the DCD and typical language
group on the BPVS-II and TROG, and for the SLI group
on the visuospatial short-term and working memory mea-
sures. Performance on the verbal short-term and working
memory measures was generally more than 1.25 standard
deviation below the standardized mean for both groups.
The DCD and typical language group achieved higher
scores on all of the language measures (BPVS, TROG,
and the Recalling Sentences subtest of the CELF-UK3), as
expected. The SLI group had slightly higher scores on the
attainment and verbal short-term memory measures and
considerably higher scores on the visuospatial short-term
and working memory tasks. Group means for the verbal
working memory tests were similar. Consider first the
screening and attainment measures. In independent t tests,
the only significant group effects were found for the lan-
guage measures: BPVS-II, t(20) = 6.04, p < .001; TROG,
t(20) = 5.14, p < .001; Recalling Sentences subtest of
the CELF-UK3, t(20) = 4.24, p < .001. The remaining
comparisons were nonsignificant: t(20) < 1 for Raven’s
Coloured Matrices, numerical operations, reading, and
spelling. These results indicate that although the two groups
differed in language skills, they performed at similar levels
on the cognitive and attainment measures.
In the multivariate analysis of variance performed on the
composite memory scores as a function of group, the over-
all Hotelling’s T was significant, F(4, 17) = 3.86, p = .02,
η2p = .48. Two of the univariate group comparisons were
significant: visuospatial short-term memory, F(1, 20) =
4.992, p = .035, η2p = .20, and visuospatial working mem-
ory, F(1, 20) = 11.91, p = .003, η2p = .37. The remaining
comparisons were nonsignificant (p > .25 in both cases).
Thus, the SLI group performed at superior levels on the
visuospatial memory measures but at a similar level to the
DCD and typical language group on the verbal memory
measures.
To confirm that language skills were not mediating
performance on memory measures between the two
groups, a multivariate analysis of covariance was per-
formed on the four composite memory measures, with
the receptive language measure (BPVS-II raw scores) as
a covariate. The overall group term was no longer signif-
icant, F = 1.52, p = .24, η2p = .28, although the DCD
group still performed significantly worse compared with
the SLI children in visuospatial working memory, F(1,
19) = 4.20, p = .05, η2p = .18. These findings indicate that
even when the contribution of receptive language skills
was accounted for, the DCD group performed signifi-
cantly worse on the visuospatial working memory mea-
sures compared with the SLI group.
Group Membership
As a test of the extent to which memory scores uniquely
differentiated the two atypical groups, discriminant func-
tion analyses were conducted for the two memory mea-
sures that produced significant group differences and
 Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Standard Scores for Language, Memory, and Attainment for the
DCD and Typical Language, Unselected DCD, and SLI Groups
DCD and Typical Language (n = 11) Unselected DCD (n = 12) SLI (n = 11)

Measure Minimum Maximum M SD Minimum Maximum M SD Minimum Maximum M SD

Screening measures
Raven’s Coloured Matrices 85 119 101.36 11.13 75 119 99.63 18.42 90 125 101.36 9.97
Receptive vocabulary (BPVS-II) 86 121 100.91 9.18 56 124 87.42 14.95 58 94 76.09 10.08
Receptive grammar (TROG) 86 114 97.55 10.03 57 103 87.00 15.70 63 91 77.36 8.31
Recalling Sentences subtest of 3 10 6.91 2.77 3 10 5.92 2.19 3 5 3.27 0.65
the CELF-UK3a
Verbal STM: composite score 61 90 79.67 8.77 61 103 79.03 13.55 72 98 83.94 8.95
Digit recall 42 102 79.18 17.84 55 109 78.42 14.07 69 104 85.64 10.48
Word recall 52 110 80.64 14.55 55 99 81.25 15.15 74 97 84.82 7.81
Nonword recall 63 98 79.18 10.53 41 114 77.42 20.62 59 101 81.36 14.40
Verbal WM: composite score 63 105 80.91 12.13 58 101 79.83 13.09 71 89 80.67 5.71
Listening recall 43 127 84.55 24.46 55 113 83.92 15.74 58 103 86.82 12.85
Counting recall 59 91 77.73 10.44 60 114 75.17 14.38 60 95 74.27 12.02
Backward digit recall 53 109 80.45 19.83 50 116 80.42 19.48 72 88 80.91 6.28
Visuospatial STM: composite score 56 95 81.58 11.61 63 100 77.64 11.40 69 113 93.09 12.55
Dot matrix 32 113 81.18 21.90 55 103 76.08 12.70 64 126 93.09 18.37
Mazes memory 68 107 87.55 14.59 65 104 77.67 11.06 67 130 92.45 14.86
Block recall 45 97 76.00 15.21 57 116 79.17 18.59 70 124 93.73 16.27
Visuospatial WM: composite score 59 106 77.48 11.75 54 88 69.83 10.91 79 108 92.30 8.05
Odd one out 47 118 79.64 17.53 68 96 79.67 9.88 76 130 98.55 16.19
Mr. X 61 93 79.73 9.60 48 90 68.75 13.02 68 102 90.18 10.25
Spatial span 54 111 73.09 17.14 40 81 61.08 16.27 79 96 88.18 6.18
Attainment measures
Numerical operations (WOND) 66 111 87.91 13.33 63 112 83.42 13.67 75 138 91.18 18.30
Reading (WORD) 71 118 85.45 13.49 65 102 81.00 11.93 71 119 89.91 15.17
Spelling (WORD) 72 118 85.82 13.31 66 105 80.00 11.82 72 119 90.36 14.49

Note: BPVS-II = British Picture Vocabulary Scales, 2nd Edition; CELF-UK3 = Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–UK 3; DCD = developmental coordination disorder;
SLI = specific language impairment; STM = short-term memory; TROG = Test for Reception of Grammar; WM = working memory; WOND = Wechsler Objective Numerical Dimensions;
WORD = Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions.
a. Scaled scores (M = 10, SD = 3).

257
258 Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 2 Table 3
Classification by Discriminant Function Analysis Pearson Correlations Between Composite Memory
for Memory and Language Measures and Attainment Measures for the SLI, DCD and
Correctly Classified as Typical Language, and Full DCD Groups
Composite Memory Measures
Variable Entered SLI DCD
Verbal Visuospatial
SLI (n = 11) vs. DCD and typical
language (n = 11) Attainment Measure STM WM STM WM
Visuospatial STM 7 (63.6%) 8(72.7%)
Visuospatial WM 9 (81.8%) 9 (81.8%) SLI (n = 11)
Visuospatial STM and WM 9 (81.8%) 10 (90.9%) Numeracy .47 .42 .31 .74**
BPVS-II standard score 9 (81.8%) 10 (90.9%) Reading .38 .41 –.09 .03
SLI (n = 11) vs. unselected DCD Spelling .38 .35 –.03 –.01
(n = 12) DCD and typical
Visuospatial WM 10 (83.8%) 10 (90.9%) language (n = 11)
Visuospatial and verbal WM 11 (100%) 10 (83.3%) Numeracy .72** .72** .69* .47
BPVS-II standard score 9 (81.8%) 10 (83.8%) Reading .52 .65** .50 .71**
Spelling .51 .58 .45 .71**
Note: BPVS-II = British Picture Vocabulary Scales, 2nd Edition; Full DCD (n = 23)
DCD = developmental coordination disorder; SLI = specific language Numeracy .60** .54** .62* .53**
impairment; STM = short-term memory; WM = working memory. Reading .54** .30 .27 .43*
Spelling .48* .33 .26 .39

BPVS-II standard scores for comparison. Table 2 pre-
sents the results of separate analyses for visuospatial
short-term memory, visuospatial working memory, and
BPVS-II standard score and an analysis with both visu-
ospatial composite memory measures entered. Wilks’s
lambda was significant for each of these functions: visuo-
spatial short-term memory, λ(1) = .800, p = .037; visuo-
spatial working memory, λ(2) = .627, p = .003; BPVS-II,
λ(1) = .354, p < .001; visuospatial short-term and work-
ing memory, λ(2) = .604, p = .008. BPVS-II was the best
discriminator, as expected given that the groups were
selected on the basis of this measure. Performance on the
visuospatial working memory task was sufficient to
correctly assign group membership for 82% of both the
SLI and DCD and typical language groups. This figure
rose to 91% for the DCD and typical language group
when the visuospatial short-term memory measure was
included. This outcome establishes that visuospatial
memory scores were effective at discriminating children
in the two atypical groups, with lower scores typically
characterizing the children with DCD.
To evaluate the extent to which the memory measures
differentiated the SLI group from an unmatched DCD
group, a set of discriminant function analyses was con-
ducted comparing the SLI group with the unselected DCD
group, with the results presented in Table 2. In a stepwise
discriminant function analysis with all of the composite
memory measures entered, there were two significant
functions: visuospatial working memory entered alone,
λ(1, 1, 21) = .403, p < .001, and visuospatial and verbal
working memory entered, λ(2, 1, 21) = .329, p < .001.
With both working memory measures entered, 100% of
Note: DCD = developmental coordination disorder; SLI = specific
language impairment; STM = short-term memory; WM = working
memory.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
the SLI group and 83% of the DCD group were correctly
classified. This proved more accurate than the BPVS-II
alone, which correctly differentiated 82% of the SLI
group and 83% of the DCD group. It should be noted that
in a corresponding discriminant function analysis com-
paring the SLI with the combined DCD groups (n = 23),
visuospatial working memory was the only significant
variable, with 91% of SLI children and 83% of DCD
children correctly assigned.
Working Memory Profiles and Learning
The two clinical groups in the present study were char-
acterized by different working memory profiles: SLI
deficits were found for verbal but not visuospatial mea-
sures of short-term and working memory, whereas the
DCD groups had across-the-board deficits in both verbal
and visuospatial short-term and working memory. The
relationship between these working memory profiles and
measures of learning was evaluated in a series of correla-
tions. These analyses must be considered exploratory and
be interpreted with caution because of the small number
of participants and reduced score range typical of clinical
groups. Table 3 presents correlation coefficients between
the composite memory scores and attainment measures
for the SLI, DCD and typical language, and full DCD
(combined typical language and unselected, n = 23)
groups. There was a striking difference between groups:

Correlations were generally higher and significant for the
DCD groups than the SLI group, although this difference
was most notable between the DCD and typical language
and SLI groups. In addition, all of the memory measures
were significantly correlated with at least one attainment
measure for the DCD groups, whereas only the correlation
between visuospatial working memory composite and
numeracy reached significance for the SLI group.
Consistent with their uniformly low working memory
profile, correlations for the DCD groups were similar across
the cognitive measures, ranging from approximately 0.5
to 0.7 for the DCD and typical language group and from
0.3 to 0.6 for the full DCD groups for both the verbal and
visuospatial domains, short-term and working memory,
and literacy and numeracy. There were indications of a
domain difference for the SLI group, but the relationship
appeared to be driven by areas of deficit rather than
strength: Low but uniform correlations were found between
verbal memory and attainment measures (.35–.47),
whereas visuospatial memory was unrelated to two of the
attainment measures (reading and spelling, r = .01–.09)
and slightly (visuospatial short-term memory) or strongly
(visuospatial working memory) correlated with numeracy
(r = .31 and .74, respectively). It appears that the SLI
group did not depend on their stronger visuospatial
memory skills in literacy learning.
Discussion
In this study, we compared the performance on short-
term and working memory measures of children with
two different developmental pathologies, SLI and DCD.
Children with SLI showed marked impairments on ver-
bal but not visuospatial measures of short-term and
working memory, whereas children with DCD had gen-
eral deficits across verbal and visuospatial short-term
and working memory. Performance on the visuospatial
and verbal working memory measures successfully dis-
criminated 100% of SLI and 83% of an unselected DCD
group, a classification rate higher than a standard lan-
guage measure. Visuospatial working memory alone was
sufficient to classify at least 82% of a matched sample
of DCD and SLI groups. The pattern of correlations
between the memory and learning measures also differed
between groups. Consistent with their uniformly low
working memory profile, all of the memory measures
were correlated with at least one test of attainment for
the DCD group. The relationship between the memory
and learning measures was less clear for the SLI group,
with low correlations between the attainment measures
and verbal memory and a high correlation between
Alloway, Archibald / DCD and SLI 259
numeracy and visuospatial working memory. One expla-
nation for the absence of stronger relationships between
memory performance and attainment measures could be
that the range of scores for these atypical groups was
restricted. Their depressed scores, coupled with the small
sample sizes, could account for the absence of correlations
found by other authors. This possibility should be tested
in future studies.
In addition to the language and motor differences that
characterize children with DCD and SLI, the present
findings indicate that differences exist also in their imme-
diate memory profiles. The flat profile of DCD deficits in
short-term and working memory across domains con-
trasted with the relatively domain-specific SLI impair-
ments in verbal short-term and working memory. Although
the groups achieved similar performance levels on mea-
sures of literacy and numeracy, they exhibited different
associations between the memory and attainment mea-
sures. Perhaps because of the uniformly low memory
skills, short-term and working memory were moderately
associated with attainment measures across domains in the
DCD group. The more interesting case was provided by
the SLI group. Despite strengths in visuospatial memory,
measures of visuospatial memory were not associated
with any of the attainment measures except numeracy. In
fact, short-term and working memory in the SLI group
showed little relationship to reading and literacy, and the
most consistent associations were with the poor verbal
memory skills. It may be that verbal working memory
measures are more closely associated with scholastic
attainment than the visuospatial working memory mea-
sures included in the present study.
The verbal short-term and working memory tasks in the
present study did not, however, act as additional language
measures, as has been suggested by some researchers
(MacDonald & Christiansen, 2002; Snowling, Chiat, &
Hulme, 1991). All of the groups performed at similarly
low levels on these tasks, even though the groups differed
widely in language status: the DCD and typical language
group had average language skills, the unselected DCD
group had low-normal language skills, and the SLI group
had impaired language skills. These findings point to a
commonality in deficits in these clinical groups, which
may account for their similar learning profiles to some
extent. Certainly, it is unclear from the present findings
if the strengths in visuospatial memory in the SLI group
place them at any noticeable advantage.
It is commonly held that there is considerable hetero-
geneity among children who present with either DCD or
SLI. In the present study, the children in the DCD group
exhibited the widest score range on all of the screening
measures, with minimum scores on the language measures
260 Journal of Learning Disabilities
falling below those of the SLI group. The SLI group, on
the other hand, had no concomitant motor impairments.
Thus, the DCD group represented a more heterogeneous
group than the children with SLI in the present study.
Nevertheless, the substantial heterogeneity among the
DCD groups did not drastically alter performance on a
variety of cognitive, memory, and attainment measures.
A subset of children with DCD and typical language skills
and an unselected DCD group were found to perform at
comparably low levels on verbal short-term and working
memory, visuospatial short-term and working memory,
and reading, spelling and numeracy tasks (see also
Alloway 2007; Alloway & Temple, 2007). These find-
ings suggest that the current focus on heterogeneity with
respect to memory skills and learning in developmental
pathologies may be misplaced. It may be possible to
relax selection criteria to include larger sample groups
without introducing excessive variability.
Given the average language profile of the DCD and
typical language group, one possibility is that these
children may also be classified as having a nonverbal
learning disability (see Rourke & Tsatsanis, 1996). The
profile of this disability includes average verbal IQ but
substantially poorer nonverbal IQ skills. Children with
this disability also struggle in tasks involving nonverbal
problem solving and visual-spatial-organizational skills.
On the surface, they appear to have a certain level of lin-
guistic competence, as evidenced by their use of various
sentence structures, strong memorization skills, and above-
average abilities in single-word reading and spelling.
However, their competence in language is superficial, and
they struggle most in tasks requiring the use of contextual
information or sophisticated social competence. Closer
inspection of the performance of children in the DCD
and typical language group in the present study revealed
striking contrasts between the two profiles. Specifically,
they did not appear to have a deficit in nonverbal IQ
skills (as measured by Raven’s Coloured Matrices); rather,
they had marked impairments in single-word reading and
spelling (as measured by the Reading and Spelling
subtests of the Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions,
respectively) and memory (in both sentence memory and
working memory, assessed by the Recalling Sentences
subtest of the CELF-UK3 and the AWMA, respectively).
This suggests that although the DCD and typical language
group had relatively poor nonverbal skills compared with
the SLI group, they exhibited distinctive skills from a
nonverbal learning disability cohort.
SLI and DCD differ in their principal domains of
impairment, language and motor coordination, respec-
tively. The present results indicate that in addition, these
groups differ in their working memory profiles. Measures
of verbal and visuospatial working memory, taken
together, are excellent group discriminators. Children
with DCD performed at low levels on both verbal and
visuospatial measures of short-term and working mem-
ory, whereas children with SLI exhibited deficits in ver-
bal memory only. Despite different associations between
working memory and measures of attainment for the
children with DCD and those with SLI, the groups per-
formed similarly in numeracy, reading, and spelling. It
appeared that verbal memory measures were more closely
related to learning outcomes for both atypical groups,
although visuospatial working memory was strongly
related to numeracy as well.
Note
1. The pattern of performance growth as a function of age, which
plots the z scores for each year group from 4 to 11 years in the
AWMA sample, was compared with the WMTB-C sample. The tests
indicate broadly similar developmental functions, with performance
increasing across each year group.
References
Alloway, T. P. (2006). Working memory and children with develop-
mental co-ordination disorders. In T. P. Alloway & S. E. Gathercole
(Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental conditions
(pp. 161–187). New York: Psychology Press.
Alloway, T. P. (2007a). The Automated Working Memory Assessment.
London: Pearson Assessment.
Alloway, T. P. (2007b). Working memory, literacy and numeracy in
children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 20–36.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Adams, A. M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R.,
& Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and other cognitive skills
as predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school
entry. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 417–426.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2004).
A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive
skills in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
87, 85–106.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2005).
Working memory and special educational needs. Educational and
Child Psychology, 22, 56–67.
Alloway, T. P., & Temple, K. J. (2007). A comparison of working
memory profiles and learning in children with developmental
coordination disorder and moderate learning difficulties. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 473–487.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Archibald, L.M.D., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006a). Short-term and
working memory in children with specific language impairments.
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders,
41, 675–693.
Archibald, L.M.D., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006b). Visuospatial imme-
diate memory in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, & Hearing Research, 49, 265–277.
Archibald, L.M.D., & Gathercole, S. E. (2007). The complexities of
complex span: Specifying working memory deficits in SLI.
Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 177–194.

Arvedson, P. J. (2002). Young children with specific language impair-
ment and their numerical cognition. Journal of Speech, Language
and Hearing Research, 45, 970–982.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5–28.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phono-
logical loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review,
105, 158–173.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in
research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Bavin, E. L., Wilson, P., Maruff, P., & Sleeman, F. (2005). Spatio-visual
memory of children with specific language impairment: Evidence
for generalized processing problems. International Journal of
Language and Communicative Disorders, 40, 319–332.
Bishop D. (1982). Test for Reception of Grammar. London: Medical
Research Council.
Bishop, D.V.M., & Adams, J. A. (1990). A prospective study of the
relationship between specific language impairment, phonological
disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 31, 1027–1050.
Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G., (2001). Non-word repetition and
language development in children with specific language impairment
(SLI). International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 36, 421–432.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of
children’s mathematics ability. Shifting, inhibition and working
memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 19, 273–293.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading compre-
hension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal
ability and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96, 31–42.
Catts, H., Fey, M., Tomblin, J., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal inves-
tigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142–1157.
Choudhury, N., & Benasich, A. A. (2003). A family aggregation
study: The influence of family history and other risk factors on
language development. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing
Research, 46, 261–271.
Conrad, R., & Hull, A. J. (1964). Information, acoustic confusion and
memory span. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 429–432.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in
working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal learning and
Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
De Jong, P. F. (1998). Working memory deficits of reading disabled
children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 75–96.
Dewey, D., Kaplan, B. J., Crawford, S. G., & Wilson, B. N. (2002).
Developmental coordination disorder: Associated problems in
attention, learning, and psychosocial adjustment. Human Movement
Science, 21, 905–918.
Dollaghan, C., & Campbell, T. F. (1998). Nonword repetition and
child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 41, 1136–1146.
Donlan, C., & Gourlay, S. (1999). The importance of non-verbal
skills in the acquisition of place-value knowledge: Evidence from
normally-developing and language-impaired children. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 1–19.
Duff, S. C., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Storage and processing in visuo-
spatial working memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
40, 251–259.
Alloway, Archibald / DCD and SLI 261
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C. W., & Burley, J. (1997). The
British Picture Vocabulary Scales (2nd ed.). Windsor, UK: NFER
Nelson.
Edwards, J., & Lahey, M. (1998). Nonword repetitions of children
with specific language impairment: Exploration of some expla-
nations for their inaccuracies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19,
279–309.
Ellis Weismer, S. (1991). Hypothesis testing abilities of language
impaired children. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 34,
1329–1338.
Ellis Weismer, S., Evans, J., & Hesketh, L. (1999). An examination of
working memory capacity in children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
42, 1249–1260.
Ellis Weismer, S., Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., Gaura
Chynoweth, J., & Jones, M. (2000). Nonword repetition perfor-
mance in school-age children with and without language impair-
ment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
865–878.
Fazio, B. B. (1996). Serial memory in children with specific language
impairment: Examining specific content areas for assessment and
intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 17, 58–71.
Flax, J. F., Realpe-Bonilla, T., Hirsch, L. S., Brzustowicz, L. M.,
Bartlett, C. W., Tallal, P. (2003). Specific language impairment in
families: Evidence for co-occurrence with reading impairments.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 530–543.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2006).
Working memory in children with literacy and mathematical
difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93,
265–281.
Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits
in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection?
Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336–360.
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2001). Working memory deficits
in children with special educational needs. British Journal of
Special Education, 28, 89–97.
Graham, N. C. (1980). Memory constraints in language deficiency. In
F. M. Jones (Ed.), Language disability in children (pp. 69–94).
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Henderson, S. E., & Sugden, D. A. (1992). Movement Assessment
Battery for Children. Sidcup, UK: Psychological Corporation.
Henderson, S. E., & Sugden, D. A. (1996). Movement Assessment
Battery Checklist. Sidcup, UK: Psychological Corporation.
Hill, E. L. (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment:
A review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impair-
ments. International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 36, 149–171.
Iversen, S., Berg, K., Ellertsen, B., & Tonnessen, F. E. (2005). Motor
coordination difficulties in a municipality group and in a clinical
sample of poor readers. Dyslexia, 11, 217–231.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of compre-
hension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological
Review, 99, 122–149.
Kadesjo, B., & Gillberg, C. (1999). Developmental coordination dis-
order in Swedish 7-year-old children. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 820–828.
Kaplan, B. J., Wilson, B. N., Dewey, D. M., & Crawford, S. G. (1998).
DCD may not be a discrete disorder. Human Movement Science,
17, 471–490.
Lee, K. M., & Kang, S. Y. (2002). Arithmetic operation and working
memory: Differential suppression in dual tasks. Cognition, 83,
63–68.
262 Journal of Learning Disabilities
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairments.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacDonald, M. C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working
memory: A comment on Just & Carpenter (1992) and Waters &
Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54.
Mandich, A., & Polatajko, H. J. (2003). Developmental coordination
disorder: Mechanisms, measurement and management. Human
Movement Science, 22, 407–411.
Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Pseudoname learning by
German-speaking children with dyslexia: Evidence for a phono-
logical learning deficit. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
75, 116–133.
McLean, J. F., & Hitch, G. H. (1999). Working memory impairments
in children with specific mathematics learning difficulties. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 240–260.
Miller, C. A., Kail, R., Leonard, L. B., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Speed
of processing in children with specific language impairment.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44,
416–433.
Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J.
(1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect
underlying language impairments. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 73, 139–158.
Nelson, L., Kamhi, A., & Apel, K. (1987). Cognitive strengths and
weaknesses in language-impaired children: One more look.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 36–45.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). Short term memory,
working memory, and inhibitory control in children with specific
arithmetic learning disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 80, 44–57.
Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Working Memory Test
Battery for Children. London: Harcourt Assessment.
Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2004). Distinctive working
memory profiles in children with varying special educational
needs. Educational Psychology, 24, 393–408.
Piek, J. P., & Dyck, M. J. (2004). Sensory-motor deficits in children
with developmental coordination disorder, attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder and autistic disorder. Human Movement Science,
23, 475–488.
Quinn, J. G. (1994). Towards a clarification of spatial processing.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 465–480.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1986). Raven’s Coloured
Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
Records, N., & Tomblin, B. (1994). Clinical decision making:
Describing the decision rules of practicing speech-language pathol-
ogists. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 37,
144–156.
Rourke, B., & Tsatsanis, K. (1996). Syndrome of nonverbal learning
disabilities: Psycholinguistic assets and deficits. Topics in Language
Disorders, 16, 30–44.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (1995). Clinical Evaluation
of Language Fundamentals–3. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological
Corporation.
Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory
resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An indi-
vidual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 125, 4–27.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working
memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled
children. Child Development, 60, 973–980.
Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M.-F., Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. M. (2000).
Working memory resources and children’s reading comprehen-
sion. Reading and Writing, 13, 81–103.
Smyth, M. M., Pearson, N. A., & Pendleton, L. R. (1988). Movement
and working memory: Patterns and positions in space. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 497–514.
Smyth, M. M., & Scholey, K. A. (1996). The relationship between
articulation time and memory performance in verbal and visu-
ospatial tasks. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 179–191.
Snowling, M., Chiat, S., & Hulme, C. (1991). Words, nonwords and
phonological processes: Some comments on Gathercole, Willis,
Emslie & Baddeley. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12, 369–373.
Swanson, H. L. (1994). Short-term memory and working memory—
Do both contribute to our understanding of academic achievement
in children and adults with learning disabilities? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 27, 34–50.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1995). Working memory as a source
of individuals differences in children’s writing. In E. Butterfield
(Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of skilled writ-
ing (pp. 31–35). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2001). Mathematical problem
solving and working memory in children with learning disabili-
ties: Both executive and phonological processes are important.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 294–321.
Swanson, H. L., & Saez, L. (2003). Memory difficulties in children
and adults with learning disabilities. In L. Swanson et al. (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 182–198). New York: Guilford.
Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., &
O’Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment
in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing
Research, 40, 1245–1260.
Visser, J. (2003).Developmental coordination disorder: A review of
research on subtypes and comorbidities. Human Movement
Science, 22, 479–493.
Wechsler, D. (1993). Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions.
London: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1996). Wechsler Objective Numerical Dimensions.
London: Psychological Corporation.
Wiig, E. H., & Semel, E. M. (1976). Language disabilities in children
and adolescents. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Williams, K. T. (1997). Expressive Vocabulary Test. New York:
American Guidance Service.
Wilson, P. H. (2005). Approaches to assessment and treatment of
children with DCD: An evaluative review. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 806–823.
Tracy Packiam Alloway, PhD, is a senior research psycholo-
gist based at the University of Durham. She is interested in
how working memory affects learning in both typical and
atypical populations (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
autistic spectrum disorder, developmental coordination diffi-
culties [dyspraxia], and dyscalculia).
Lisa Archibald is an assistant professor in the School of
Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of
Western Ontario. She studies links between memory and lan-
guage processes in individuals with communication disorders.
In particular, she is interested in the extent to which limitations
in working memory may impair language learning in children.