Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library]
On: 01 October 2012, At: 00:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20
Distinctive working memory profiles in

children with special educational needs
a b
Susan J. Pickering & Susan E. Gathercole
a
University of Bristol, UK
b
University of Durham, UK
Version of record first published: 05 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Susan J. Pickering & Susan E. Gathercole (2004): Distinctive working memory
profiles in children with special educational needs, Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 24:3, 393-408
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000211715
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June 2004
Distinctive Working Memory Profiles in

Children with Special Educational
Needs
Educational Psychology 2004.24:393-408. downloaded from www.tandfonline.com
Susan J. Pickering1 & Susan E. Gathercole2*

1
University of Bristol, UK; 2University of Durham, UK
The working memory skills of children with four categories of special educational needs
(SEN) were investigated: general learning difficulties, language problems, literacy problems,
and attentional and behavioural problems. Children with general learning difficulties
performed poorly on measures of all three components of the working memory model: the
phonological loop, central executive, and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. Children with prob-
lems specific to language had impairments of the phonological loop and the central
executive only. The working memory abilities of the groups with literacy and behavioural
problems fell within the normal range. These findings are explained in terms of specific roles
played by components of working memory in supporting learning activities.
Research over the past two decades has established close links between working
memory skills and learning difficulties in children. Relatively poor abilities to
store material over brief periods of time have been found to characterize
children failing to progress normally in the areas of literacy (de Jong, 1998;
Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Gathercole, Pickering, Knight, & Stegmann,
2004; Swanson, 1994), mathematics (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Jarvis & Gathercole,
2003; Mayringer & Wimmer, 2000; Siegel & Ryan, 1989), and language
comprehension (Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crain, & Snowling, 1999; Seigneu-
ric, Ehrlich, Oakhill & Yuill, 2000).
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the extent to which
deficits in working memory characterize children with recognized special edu-
cational needs (SEN), and to determine whether different types of learning
difficulty are associated with distinctive working memory profiles. Exploration
of these issues was guided by the working memory model developed originally
by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), and extended by Baddeley in 2000. The model
consists of a central executive linked directly with three other subsystems: the
phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer. The
Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, Science Laboratories, University of

Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE UK. Email: s.e.gathercole@durham.ac.uk
ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-046X (online)/04/030393-16
 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0144341042000211715
394 S. J. Pickering & S. E. Gathercole
central executive is a flexible system responsible for the control and regulation
of cognitive processes such as the coordination of multiple tasks (Baddeley,
Della Sala, Papagno, & Spinnler, 1997), shifting between tasks or retrieval
strategies (Baddeley, 1996), and selective attention and inhibition (Baddeley,
Emslie, Kolodny, & Duncan, 1998). Other theoretical accounts of general
working memory that correspond in some respects to the central executive
include notions of a limited resource that can be flexibly allocated to support
either processing or storage (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Just & Carpenter,
1992), and of a limited attentional resource responsible for the temporary
activation of information from long-term memory (Cowan, 1988, 1995; Engle,

Kane, & Tuholski, 1999).
Individual differences in the capacity of the central executive are commonly
assessed using complex memory paradigms requiring simultaneous storage and
processing of information. An example of such a task is reading span, in which
the participant makes judgments about the semantic properties of sentences
while remembering the last word of each sentence in sequence (Daneman &
Carpenter, 1980). According to a recent proposal, verbal complex memory
tasks such as these may also rely on the verbal storage component of working
memory, the phonological loop (Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Duff & Logie,
2001). Alternative theoretical accounts of complex working memory tasks
include the view that performance is supported by a unitary limited resource
that can support either or both of processing and storage (Case, Kurland, &
Goldberg, 1982; Just & Carpenter, 1992). Complex working memory span
measures have consistently been found to be good predictors of performance in
many complex cognitive activities including language comprehension (Mac-
Donald, Just & Carpenter, 1992), reasoning (Kyllonen & Christal, 1990), and
language and reading abilities (de Jong, 1998; Swanson, 1994).
In the working memory model, the central executive is supplemented by two
slave systems specialized for temporary storage and manipulation of material in
specific domains. The verbal storage system is the phonological loop, com-
posed of a short-term phonological store subject to rapid decay plus a subvocal
rehearsal process that can be used to restore decaying representations within
the store (Baddeley, 1986). Theoretical accounts of memory other than the
working memory model also incorporate storage-only short-term memory
systems that are distinct from the more flexible capacities of working memory
(Cowan, 1997; Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999). The capacity of
the phonological loop is typically assessed by serial recall tasks involving
arbitrary verbal elements such as digits or words. It has been suggested that the
phonological loop plays a key role in the acquisition of vocabulary, particularly
in the early childhood years (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998). The
second slave system in the working memory model is the visuo-spatial sketch-
pad, specialized for the processing and maintenance of material that can be
represented in terms of its visual or spatial characteristics (Baddeley & Lieber-
man, 1980; Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, Allamano, & Wilson, 1999). The final
component of working memory is the episodic buffer, fractionated from the
Distinctive Working Memory 395
central executive in the most recent revision of the model (Baddeley, 2000).
The episodic buffer uses multidimensional codes to integrate representations
from components of working memory and long-term memory into unitary
episodic representations that may correspond to conscious experience. In the
revised model the episodic buffer provides direct inputs into episodic long-term
memory, raising the possibility that this component of working memory also
may provide an important gateway for learning.
Preliminary evidence that children with sufficiently severe learning
difficulties to require additional educational support do have working memory
problems was provided in a prospective study of children screened initially at

seven years of age (Gathercole & Pickering, 2001). Ten of these children were
identified as having special educational needs a year later. In comparison to
children without SEN, these children had performed significantly more poorly
on the screening measures of working memory one year earlier.
As the group of children with SEN was relatively small in the Gathercole and
Pickering (2001) study, it was not possible to determine whether the nature of
the working memory deficits varied systematically as a function of the type of
learning difficulty. An opportunity to investigate working memory function in
a much larger group of children with SEN was provided by the standardization
of the working memory test battery for children (WMTB-C) on 734 children
aged four to 15 years (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001). This test battery was
designed to provide multiple assessments of each of the three original compo-
nents of the Baddeley and Hitch (1974) working memory model, using tasks
that have been validated as measures of each component (Gathercole &
Pickering, 2000). The battery includes four measures of the phonological loop,
three measures of the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and three verbal working mem-
ory span measures believed to tap central executive resources. Routine infor-
mation collected from schools in the course of the standardization study
included SEN status, and areas of special needs where appropriate.
A total of 98 children (13%) were identified by their schools as having SEN.
Four or more children each had special needs of the following kinds: general
learning difficulties, language, reading, and behaviour. The final category of
children with behavioural and/or emotional problems was included in order to
provide a comparison of the working memory profiles of children with cogni-
tively-based learning difficulties (the general, language, and reading groups).
Although working memory deficits were expected for the first three groups on
the basis of previous research, they were not anticipated for the children whose
problems related to attentional and behavioural disturbances.
Method
Participants
Of the 734 children aged four to 15 years participating in the standardization
during 1999 and 2000 of the WMTB-C (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), 98
were identified by their schools as having SEN. In each case, the schools
specified the area/s of difficulty that provided the basis for the child’s SEN
classification, and the child’s stage in the Code of Practice on the Identification
and Assessment of Special Educational Needs (Department for Education and
Employment, 1994). Stage 1 involves gathering information and increased
differentiation within the child’s normal classroom work, and consultation
between school and parents. At Stage 2, the school SEN coordinator takes
responsibility for coordinating the child’s special educational provision in
consultation with the class teacher. At Stage 3, the school calls upon external
specialist support to help the pupil make progress, and formulates an individual
education plan for the child. Stage 4 involves the statutory assessment of SEN
for children likely to require a statement (resulting in the provision of addi-
tional resources to support the child’s educational needs). Children with a
statement of special educational needs are at Stage 5. The 83 children whose
special educational needs fell in the following categories were included in the
present study: language, literacy, general, and behaviour. Of these children, 10
were at Stage 1 of the code of practice, 45 at Stage 2, 17 at stage 3, two at
Stage 4, and nine at Stage 5.
Four children (three boys and one girl, with a mean age of 84.75 months)
were classified as having problems specific to language: their schools identified
their difficulties as relating to either language or speech in each case. Literacy
problems were identified for 29 children (21 boys and eight girls,1 with a mean
age of 116.97 months), with difficulties relating either to spelling, reading, and
literacy, with three of these children labelled as dyslexic. Twenty-six children
were classified as having general learning problems (17 boys and nine girls,
with a mean age of 92.00 months); these included children identified as having
learning problems or difficulties in both English/ literacy and mathematics. The
final category consisted of 24 children whose difficulties included mention of
behavioural disturbances including EBD, ADHD, Asperger’s syndrome, and
autistic tendencies (21 boys and three girls, with a mean age of 99.71 months).
Specific learning difficulties relating to literacy and mathematics were also
identified for several children in this group.
Seven schools in the south-west of England participated in the study: five
primary schools, and two secondary schools. The schools were selected to
represent a range of intakes and included urban, suburban and rural locations
(see Pickering & Gathercole, 2001, for further information).
Procedure
Each child was tested individually in three sessions conducted over a period of
between five to 10 days. Testing took place in a quiet room in school. Ten tests
were administered to each child: nine subtests of the working memory test
battery for children (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), and the visual patterns
test (Della Sala et al., 1997).
Phonological loop. The digit recall test involves the presentation of spoken
sequences of digits that the child is asked to recall in correct serial order. Lists
constructed randomly and without replacement from the digits ranging from 1
to 9 are spoken by the tester, at the rate of one digit per second. Following a
practice session, a maximum of six lists is presented at each length. List length
is increased by one if the child recalls four lists at that length correctly. If the
first four trials are correct, the child is credited with correct recall of all six lists
at that length and the next list length commences. Testing commences with
single digit lists, and continues until three lists of a particular length are
recalled incorrectly. The number of lists correctly recalled is scored, and

standard scores (with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) calculated.
The mean test-retest reliability coefficient for this measure is 0.81.
The span procedure and the method of scoring outlined for the digit recall
test is shared by all other WMTB-C tests. The word list recall and nonword list
recall tests differ only from digit recall in the nature of the list items (words or
nonwords). In each case, stimulus items are monosyllabic words with a
consonant-vowel-consonant structure, and no stimuli are repeated. Items must
be recalled with full accuracy (that is, with all three phonemes correct) and in
the correct serial position. Mean test-retest reliability coefficients are 0.72 for
word list recall, and 0.56 for nonword list recall.
Central executive. In the listening recall test, the child listens to a series of short
sentences, judges the veracity of each sentence in turn by responding “yes” or
“no”, and then recalls the final word of each of the sentences in sequence. Test
trials begin with a single sentence, and increase by a single sentence following
the span procedure outlined above. The mean test-retest reliability coefficient
for this measure is 0.61. In the counting recall test, the child is required to
count the number of dots presented in a series of arrays (saying the total
number aloud), and to recall subsequently the dot tallies in the order in which
the arrays were presented. A display booklet is placed in front of each child that
consists of pages each showing an area that contains either three, four, five or
six red dots. Test trials begin with a single array of dots, and increase by one
further array following the span procedure outlined above. The mean test-
retest reliability coefficient on this measure is 0.61.
The backward digit recall test is identical to the digit recall test in all respects
except that the child is required to recall the sequence of spoken digits in
reverse order. Practice trials are given in order to ensure that the child
understands the concept of reverse. The mean test-retest reliability coefficient
is 0.62.
Visuo-spatial memory. In the block recall test, the child views nine cubes located
randomly on a board. The test administrator taps a sequence of blocks, and 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 following the span
procedure outlined above. The mean test-retest reliability coefficient for this
measure is 0.53. In the mazes memory test, the child views on each trial a
two-dimensional line maze with a path drawn through the maze. The test
administrator traces the line with her/his finger in view of the child. The same
maze is then shown to the child without the path, and the child is asked to
recall the path by drawing it on the maze. Maze complexity is increased by
adding additional walls to the maze, following the span procedure outline
above. The mean test-retest reliability coefficient for this measure is 0.62.
The visual patterns test (Della Sala et al., 1997) is a measure of visual
short-term memory originally developed for use with adults, on which norms
for children are now available (Pickering & Gathercole, 2001). The test
involves the child viewing and then recalling two-dimensional grids composed
of filled (black) and unfilled (white) squares. Each grid is viewed for three
seconds, and the child is then presented with an empty grid in which he or she
has to mark the filled squares in the studied pattern. The complexity of the grid
is increased until the child can no longer reliably recall the pattern accurately.
Standard scores were calculated for this test, using the Pickering & Gathercole
(2001) norms.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the four groups on the 10 measures are shown in
Table 1. In order to determine whether the mean scores of each SEN group
differed significantly from the standardization sample mean of 100, a series of
one-sample t-tests were performed (see Table 2). Following Cohen (1988), the
effect size (d) for each measure was calculated by expressing the difference
between the means for individual groups and the standardization sample as a
whole (100) as a proportion of the pooled standard deviation (15). For
convenience, values of d reflecting poorer performance in the SEN groups than
the standardization sample as a whole are presented here as positive scores.
Thus, a d value of 1.00 corresponds to a score of 85. For the purposes of
interpretation, Cohen (1988) defined the magnitudes of effect sizes as follows:
small, d ⫽ 0.2, medium, d ⫽ 0.5, and large, d ⫽ 0.8. An effect size of ( ⫺ )0.80
places the average participant in the SEN group of interest at the 21st centile
of the standardization sample; the corresponding centile point for an effect size
of ( ⫺ )1.00 is 16.
Distinctive working memory profiles were found across the SEN groups.
The most marked deficits in working memory were found in the small group
of children with problems in the area of language (n ⫽ 4). As a group, these
children obtained low scores on all of the phonological loop and central
executive measures, with large mean effect sizes of 1.13 and 1.11, respectively.
Significant deficits by one-sample t-test (compared with the sample mean of
100) were found for three measures: digit recall, nonword recall, and listening
recall (p ⬍ 0.05 in each case). In contrast, the performance of this group did
not differ from the sample mean on any of the visuo-spatial short-term memory
measures. The SEN group with general learning difficulties showed across-the-
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for principal measures as a function of SEN category, and
effect sizes for working memory measures
SEN category
Statistic General Language Literacy Behaviour
Phonological loop
Digit recall Mean (SD) 84.53 85.73 90.02 100.99
SD 9.2 7.45 18.97 17.72
Range 65–101 80–97 34–130 43–136
Effect size 1.03 0.95 0.67 ⫺ 0.07
Word matching Mean (SD) 86.15 82.68 98.89 97.52

SD 13.95 12.47 11.21 14.58
Range 63–109 68–97 83–120 62–124
Effect size 0.92 1.15 0.07 0.17
Word recall Mean (SD) 87.93 85.08 94.25 96.68
SD 10.08 19.79 13.16 14.16
Range 69–105 58–105 59–115 67–127
Effect size 0.80 0.99 0.38 0.22
Nonword recall Mean (SD) 88.65 78.65 96.72 95.92
SD 14.46 10.49 15.25 15.86
Range 62–133 68–93 66–123 61–130
Effect size 0.76 1.42 0.22 0.27
Mean effect size 0.88 1.13 0.34 0.15
Central executive
Listening recall Mean (SD) 89.48 88.42 98.13 94.74
SD 10.64 5.39 12.01 22.25
Range 72–118 84–96 76–118 35–147
Effect size 0.70 0.77 0.12 0.35
Counting recall Mean (SD) 83.55 80.07 96.25 101.52
SD 14.49 14.62 15.89 17.18
Range 49–110 65–94 65–136 61–130
Effect size 1.10 1.33 0.25 ⫺ 0.10
Backwards digit recall Mean (SD) 81.45 81.52 91.57 99.09
SD 12.45 20.23 13.3 17.38
Range 43–107 51–94 70–127 70–142
Effect size 1.24 1.23 0.56 0.06
Mean effect size 1.01 1.11 0.53 0.10
Visuo-spatial
Visual patterns Mean (SD) 85.43 86.56 95.63 100
SD 10.02 12.07 14.44 16.05
Range 65–103 70–99 64–122 65–136
Effect size 0.97 0.90 0.29 0.00
Block recall Mean (SD) 85.12 93.93 97.99 99.13
SD 13.28 9.25 14.83 17.4
Range 62–109 81–105 72–121 70–132
Effect size 0.99 0.40 0.13 0.06
Maze recall Mean (SD) 89.69 103.86 96.13 100.16
SD 13.07 15.84 13.64 18.29
Range 72–12 91–127 64–118 64–143
Effect size 0.69 ⫺ 0.26 0.26 ⫺ 0.01
Mean effect size 0.88 0.35 0.23 0.02
Figure 1. Mean working memory scores as a function of SEN group, with standard error
bars
board deficits in working memory, with mean scores below 90 on all measures
significantly below the sample mean of 100 (p ⬍ 0.001 in each case). Mean
effect sizes were large for each of the three aspects of working memory
function: 0.88 for both the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad, and
1.01 for the central executive.
In contrast, the mean scores of the literacy SEN group exceeded 90 in all
cases, although significant deficits by one-sample t-test were found on the
measures of digit recall, word recall, and backwards digit recall (p ⬍ 0.05 in
each case). However, effect sizes for the three areas of working memory
function were small (d ⬍ 0.35 in each case). Finally, the SEN behaviour group
performed at levels close to the population mean on all measures. No
significant differences on individual measures were found (p ⬎ 0.05 in all
cases), and the effect sizes were close to zero (maximum ⫽ 0.15).
In order to compare working memory performance across the SEN groups,
mean composite scores for the phonological loop, central executive, and
visuo-spatial sketchpad were calculated by averaging the standard scores for the
relevant measures. The group profiles are shown in Figure 1.
Statistical comparisons of group performance were made in a series of
ANOVAs performed separately on the three composite working memory scores
(phonological loop, central executive, and visuo-spatial sketchpad). The lan-
guage group was not included in these analyses, due to the small group size. In
each ANOVA, the group term was highly significant: for the phonological loop
scores [F (2,76) ⫽ 8.300, p ⫽ 0.001], the central executive scores [F (2,76) ⫽

9.843, p ⬍ 0.001] and the visuo-spatial memory scores [F (2,76) ⫽ 10.449,
p ⬍ 0.001]. Post hoc Sheffé tests established that in each case, the differences
reflected the poorer performance of the children with general learning
difficulties rather than either the literacy or the behaviour groups (p ⬍ 0.001 in
each case). For comparisons of the general learning difficulties and literacy
groups, p ⬍ 0.05 for phonological loop scores, and p ⬍ 0.005 for both central
executive and visuo-spatial memory scores. No significant differences were
found between the behaviour and literacy groups (p ⬎ 0.05 in each case).
Further analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed in order to

determine whether the group differences in phonological loop and central
executive scores were independent of one another. In the ANCOVA performed
on central executive scores with phonological loop scores as the covariate, no
significant difference between SEN groups was found [F (2,72) ⫽ 2.685,
p ⫽ 0.075]. The group term in the corresponding ANCOVA performed on
phonological loop scores with central executive scores as the covariate was also
nonsignificant [F (2,72) ⫽ 1.694, p ⬎ 0.01].
Further analyses investigated the extent to which individual children in each
of the SEN groups obtained low working memory scores that were uncommon
in the standardization sample with no SEN. The proportions of children in
each group obtaining composite working memory component scores below a
series of working cutoff points were calculated, and likelihood ratios computed
(Sackett, Haynes, Guyatt, & Tugwell, 1991). These ratios represent the extent
to which the incidence of particular profiles of low working memory scores is
increased in the SEN groups relative to the standardization sample with no
SEN. The scores are summarized in Table 2.
Consider first the SEN group with general learning difficulties. These
children were many times more likely than the standardization sample to
obtain low scores on the working memory measures. Seventy-three percent of
the general SEN group obtained both central executive and phonological loop
scores below 91, a rate of incidence nearly six times greater than that in the
standardization sample. The post-test probability of membership of the SEN
group with this ratio is 0.854; this means that of the total group of children
(from the general SEN group and the no SEN standardization sample), 85%
of those who obtained this profile of scores were members of the general SEN
group. With more extreme cutoff scores of 81 on both phonological loop and
central executive measures, rate of incidence was 38.5 % for the general SEN
group, an increase of 31 times compared with the no SEN group (post-test
probability of group membership, 0.969). The highest likelihood ratio for this
group was obtained with cutoff scores of 81 for all three components of
working memory including visuo-spatial memory. Children with this profile
were 90 times more common in the general SEN group than in the no SEN
sample (post-test probability 0.989). Approximately 27 % of the general SEN
group fell in this category.
402
Table 2. Likelihood ratios for working memory cutoff scores in SEN groups
Number (proportion) of children Likelihood ratios* (with post-test probability values)

PL & CE PL & CE PL & CE PL, CE, & VS PL & CE PL & CE PL & CE PL, CE, & VS
⬍ 91 ⬍ 86 ⬍ 81 ⬍ 81 ⬍ 91 ⬍ 86 ⬍ 81 ⬍ 81
n n prop. n prop. n prop. n prop. ratio prob. ratio prob. ratio prob. ratio prob.
S. J Pickering & S. E. Gathercole
SEN: General 26 19 0.731 10 0.385 10 0.385 7 0.269 5.869 0.854 7.833 0.887 31.330 0.969 89.744 0.989
SEN: Language 4 4 1.000 2 0.500 2 0.500 0 0.000 8.958 0.900 11.357 0.919 45.429 0.978 0.000 0.000
SEN: Literacy 29 6 0.207 3 0.103 1 0.034 0 0.000 1.853 0.649 2.350 0.701 3.133 0.758 0.000 0.000
SEN: Behaviour 24 4 0.167 3 0.125 1 0.042 1 0.042 1.493 0.599 2.839 0.740 3.786 0.791 13.889 0.933
No SEN 636 71 0.112 28 0.044 7 0.011 2 0.003 – – – –
*Using no-SEN group as comparison

The frequency of low central executive and phonological loop scores was
also high in the language group, although the small size of this group should be
borne in mind when interpreting the outcomes of these analyses. All four
children obtained scores on these two components below 91, giving a likeli-
hood ratio of approximately 9 (post-test probability 0.900). The likelihood
ratio was highest, though, for cutoff scores of 81 on both the central executive
and phonological loop measures, at 45 (post-test probability 0.978). None of
the children in this group obtained visuo-spatial memory scores below 81.
Marked impairments in both of these areas of working memory therefore
characterize the majority of the children in the SEN language group.

The proportions of children in the remaining two SEN groups obtaining low
working memory scores were much lower, with likelihood ratios for these
groups generally falling in the range of 1 to 4. The only exception was the high
likelihood ratio (13.889) for the SEN behaviour group with scores below 81 on
all three areas of working memory. However, as this value arises only from a
single child in the SEN behaviour group, this outcome is not considered
further.
Discussion
Profiles of working memory abilities in children with SEN varied markedly in
this study as a function of the nature of their learning difficulties. Children
identified by their schools as having general learning difficulties that included
both literacy and mathematics performed poorly in all areas of working mem-
ory. The severity of the working memory deficits of this group was very unusual
in the large normative sample from which they were drawn. The small group
of children with problems specific to language showed a more selective profile
of working memory deficits, with marked impairments on phonological loop
and central executive tests, but scores within the average ability range on the
visuo-spatial memory tests. Children with problems relating to literacy per-
formed at low average levels in all areas of working memory assessment.
Finally, individuals with problems of a behavioural or emotional nature ob-
tained scores in the normal range on all of the memory assessments, consistent
with the classification of their special needs as being non-cognitive in origin.
The present findings of marked deficits of children with general learning
difficulties both on the verbal storage only (phonological loop) measures and
on the complex memory span measures fit well with other reports of short-term
memory deficits in children with difficulties in reading and mathematics (Bull
& Scerif, 2001; de Jong, 1998; Gathercole & Pickering, 2001; Mayringer &
Wimmer, 2000; Siegel & Ryan, 1989). Low scores on the visuo-spatial memory
tasks have not to our knowledge been reported previously. Our results establish
that these children have poor skills in all areas of working memory function.
It is important to consider why such a profile of working memory abilities is
associated with learning difficulties of this general nature. One possibility is
that the children have basic cognitive processing deficits that jeopardise both
their abilities to acquire complex skills and knowledge in areas such as literacy
and mathematics, and their capacities to store information. Similar arguments
have been made, for example, in the context of the poor performance of
children with language comprehension impairments on complex memory span
tasks such as listening span that have a significant language processing compo-
nent to them (Nation et al., 1999). By such accounts, the working memory
problems are secondary to the cognitive processing deficits, and are not in
themselves the cause of learning difficulties. The extent of the short-term
memory deficits of children with general learning difficulties is problematic for
this class of account. While it is widely accepted that the complex memory span
tasks employed in our study (backwards digit recall, listening recall, and
counting recall) impose significant burdens on concurrent processing associ-
ated with the central executive/ general working memory system, the phonolog-
ical and visuo-spatial short-term memory tasks impose minimal processing
loads, tapping instead the storage capacity of the respective working memory
slave systems (Baddeley & Logie, 1999). Cognitive processing problems would
therefore be expected to manifest themselves to a greater extent on the complex
memory span tests than the storage only tasks. In fact, the deficits of the
general learning difficulties group were similar in magnitude across the com-
plex span and storage only measures.
An alternative interpretation is that these children genuinely have deficits in
each of the three aspects of working memory function, and that these deficits
compromise their educational progress. There is substantial evidence that the
phonological storage capacity of the phonological loop is crucial to the acqui-
sition of vocabulary, and in particular to the learning of the phonological
structures of new words (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998). Consistent
with this position, children with poor phonological loop function are typically
poor at learning the phonological forms of new words (Gathercole & Baddeley,
1989; Gathercole, Hitch, Service, & Martin, 1997). The poor phonological
storage skills of both the children with general learning difficulties and the
children whose problems are restricted to language may therefore be expected
to lead to early difficulties in acquiring new vocabulary.
The capacity to process and store information indexed by complex verbal
working memory tasks may be crucial to support learning more generally
(Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, in press). Many of the learning activities of
the child in the classroom require both the storage of information in addition
to ongoing and often highly demanding cognitive processing. Failures of either
storage or processing are likely to result in a lack of learning success. Consider,
for example, mental arithmetic. The child not only has to store the verbal form
of the problem, but to retrieve and apply learned mathematical rules or to make
on-line mathematical calculations. At the same time he or she may also have to
store intermediate products of calculations. Disturbance of any of these com-
ponent processes will result in task failure. Literacy activities are similarly
burdensome. Typical classroom activities include holding in mind a sentence
to write down, detecting rhyming words in a passage of text, and counting
words in sentences. In each case, the child has to keep his or her place in a
complex task hierarchy while engaging in effortful processing activities (for
example, spelling individual words, sounding them out, or counting them) to
be successful. It seems likely that children with poor capacities both to store
and process information will struggle to succeed in the basic learning activities
that represent crucial steps in the acquisition of knowledge and complex skills.
The combination of poor processing abilities and inadequate storage capacities
for either phonological or visuo-spatial material may seriously challenge the
child’s abilities to succeed in the basic educational activities and exercises
designed to develop their scholastic skills.

It should be noted that scores on measures associated with the phonological
loop and central executive were highly associated in the general SEN group.
This may reflect in part the use of the phonological loop to support perform-
ance on the verbally-based complex memory span tasks, as well as on the verbal
storage only measures (Baddeley & Logie, 1999). Deficits in the phonological
loop alone, however, are unlikely to give rise to this profile of working memory
scores. In a recent study of children performing at corresponding very low
levels on phonological loop tests, we found that performance on the same
verbal complex span tasks was considerably higher and within the normal range
(Gathercole, Tiffany, Briscoe, Thorn, & the ALSPAC team, in press). Phono-
logical loop deficits alone do not therefore appear to be a sufficient basis for
marked impairments of an equivalent magnitude on complex memory span
and phonological storage tasks.
The working memory deficits of the children whose educational needs were
related to language were more specific than those for the general learning
difficulties group. The visuo-spatial memory skills of all children in the literacy
group fell within the normal range, although their performance on the verbal
storage and complex verbal memory tasks was poor. This profile corresponds
closely to that observed in children with specific language impairment
(Archibald & Gathercole, 2004). One possibility is that the intact storage
capacity of the visuo-spatial sketchpad in such children can compensate for
their poor verbal storage and processing capacities. These children may be able
to capitalize on imagery or other kinds of visuo-spatial mediation as a means of
overcoming their other problems. Strategic visuo-spatial mediation may be
particularly valuable in mathematics (McLean & Hitch, 1999) and literacy
(Johnston & Anderson, 1998), but less useful in the context of language, as
phonological forms are the basic representational medium. This may explain
why the learning difficulties of this subgroup of children are restricted just to
language.
The absence of marked impairments of working memory in children with
literacy problems only is unexpected, as deficits in both complex memory span
and verbal storage have been widely reported for children with reading-related
problems (de Jong, 1998). A possible reason for this apparent inconsistency
may relate to differences in selection criteria. The approach we took was to
classify children on the basis of the areas of learning difficulties identified by
their schools, using categories that took into account the range as well as the
nature of the learning difficulties of the individual child. Thus, children with
problems in mathematics as well as literacy were classified as having general
learning difficulties rather than difficulties specific to literacy. In contrast, the
majority of previous studies have selected children on the basis of reading
ability and general ability indicators such as IQ, and may therefore have
included individuals with non-assessed learning difficulties that extend beyond
literacy in the poor reader groups. Their findings of impairments in both
complex memory span and phonological short-term memory may therefore be
a result of the inclusion of children with more pervasive special educational

needs. As a consequence, the working memory deficits of children with literacy
problems alone may have been over-estimated in previous studies.
In summary, marked deficits in working memory skills that were unusual in
their severity in a large unselected sample of children were found to be
characteristic of children with SEN that are either general or specific to
language. Very poor performance on tests of the phonological loop and central
executive components of working memory are common in both groups. The
data point to the importance of considering working memory limitations as a
possible source of learning difficulties, both in the course of assessment and
classroom intervention. Progress towards learning goals for such children may
be improved by alleviating the working memory loads in the classroom, by
methods such as using external memory supports wherever possible, frequent
repetition of instructions, and breaking complex tasks down into separate
stages that are prompted. If successful, this approach could reduce the high
frequency of task failures and missed opportunities for successful learning
commonly experienced by children with special educational needs.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a Medical Research Council programme grant
on “Working memory and learning disability” awarded to Alan Baddeley and
Susan Gathercole.
Note
1. Note that although the predominance of males in this sample is consistent with the
majority of previous studies of children with deficits in literacy, there is evidence that
prevalence is as common in females as in males if diagnostic procedures that do not
include behavioural assessments are adopted (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Esco-
bar, 1990).
References
Archibald, L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2004). Working memory deficits in Specific Language
Impairment. Manuscript in preparation.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 49, 5–28.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–422.
Baddeley, A. D., Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Papagno, C., & Spinnler, H. (1997). Testing
central executive functioning with a pencil-and-paper test. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.),
Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 61–80). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the
executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51,
819–852.
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a
language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D., & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R. S. Nickerson
(Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 521–539). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component
model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics
ability: Inhibition, task switching, and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychol-
ogy, 19, 273–293.
Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operatioal efficiency and the growth of
short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386–404.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their
mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychological
Bulletin, 104, 163–191.
Cowan, N. (1997). The development of working memory. In N. Cowan (Ed.), The
development of memory in childhood (pp.163–200). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and
reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 19, 450–466.
Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A. D., Allamano, M., & Wilson, L. (1999). Pattern
span: A tool for unwelding visuo-spatial memory. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1189–1199.
de Jong, P. F. (1998). Working memory deficits of reading disabled children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 75–96.
Department for Education and Employment (1994). Code of Practice on the Identification and
Assessment of Special Needs. London: HMSO.
Duff, S. C., & Logie, R. H. (2001). Processing and storage in working memory span.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 31–48.
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working
memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid
intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.),
Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control
(pp. 102–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working
memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable ap-
proach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 309–331.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM
in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory
and Language, 28, 200–213.
Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G. J., Service, E., & Martin, A. J. (1997). Short-term memory and
long-term learning in children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 966–979.
Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (in press). Working memory in the
classroom. In S. J. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education. Elsevier Press.
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Working memory deficits in children with low
achievements in the national curriculum at seven years of age. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70, 177–194.
Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2001). Working memory deficits in children with
special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 28, 89–97.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory
skills and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at
7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–16.

Gathercole, S. E., Tiffany, C., Briscoe, J., Thorn, A. S. C., & the ALSPAC team. (in press).
Developmental consequences of phonological loop deficits during early childhood: A longitudi-
nal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Jarvis, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (in press). Verbal and non- verbal working memory and
achievements on national curriculum tests at 11 and 14 years of age. Educational and
Child Psychology, 20, 123–140.
Johnston, R. S., & Anderson, M. (1998). Memory span, naming speed, and memory
strategies in normal and poor readers. Memory, 6, 143–164.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual
differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-
memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints
on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.
Mayringer, H., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Pseudoname learning by German-speaking children
with dyslexia: Evidence for a phonological learning deficit. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 75, 116–133.
McLean, J., & Hitch, G. J. (1999). Working memory impairments in children with specific
arithmetic learning difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 240–260.
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.
Pickering, S. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2001). Working memory test battery for children.
London: Psychological Corporation Europe.
Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G. H., & Tugwell, P. (1991). Clinical epidemiology.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M. F., Oakhill, J. V., & Yuill, N. M. (2000). Working memory
resources and children’s reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 13, 81–103.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of
reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998–1002.
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.
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.

Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University Of South Australia Library]

On: 01 October 2012, At: 00:42

Distinctive working memory profiles in

Version of record first published: 05 Oct 2010.

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000211715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Distinctive Working Memory Profiles in

Susan J. Pickering1 & Susan E. Gathercole2*

Corresponding author: Department of Psychology, Science Laboratories, University of

activation of information from long-term memory (Cowan, 1988, 1995; Engle,

problems was provided in a prospective study of children screened initially at

recalled incorrectly. The number of lists correctly recalled is scored, and

Word matching Mean (SD) 86.15 82.68 98.89 97.52

scores [F (2,76) ⫽ 8.300, p ⫽ 0.001], the central executive scores [F (2,76) ⫽

Further analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed in order to

Number (proportion) of children Likelihood ratios* (with post-test probability values)

*Using no-SEN group as comparison

characterize the majority of the children in the SEN language group.

designed to develop their scholastic skills.

a result of the inclusion of children with more pervasive special educational

Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental

language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.

7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–16.

You might also like