Conceptual rule learning in normal and learning disabled children

Conceptual-rule learning performance of 36 normal and learning-disabled children, matched on CA, MA, and sex was compared with the use of a modified reception paradigm. Four types of rules (affirmation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional) and familiar and nonfamiliar shape attributes were used to test Bourne's stimulus-encoding hypothesis. Main findings indicated that when tested, learning-disabled children were deficient in all conceptual-rule tasks on an experimental paced, continuous-reinforcement schedule. Expected differences in rule complexity were found; however, disabled children's conceptual-rule response difficulties did not compare with normals. Manipulation of the attribute of shape familiarity produced only discernible saliency advantages in normal children. It was hypothesized that learning-diabled children were poor in problem solving because of a deficit in the comprehension of negative instances.