for perfecto

PROFESSOR CALLEN

AFrameworkforAddressingtheNeedsofStudentsPrenatallyExposedtoAlcoholandOtherDrugs-ProQuest.html

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >for perfecto

Skip to main content Toggle navigation

ProQuest

Recent Searches
Selected Items
Display selected items layer

Display selected items
×
Please select one or more items.
Close
My Research and Language Selection
Help and support
- ProQuest HelpGo directly to information on using the current page.
- Support CenterFind answers to questions about products, access, use, setup, and administration.
- Training (LibGuides)User guides, online and onsite training, webinars, and more.
- Contact UsHave a question, idea, or some feedback? We want to hear from you.
- Product TrialsRequest a free product trial.
- CreditsView details about the photos used on different databases throughout the platform.

Sign in to My Research layer

Sign in to My Research

Save and organize your research.

Username: Password: Forgot your password? Create My Research account Create My Research account Sign in

Create a My Research account layer

Create a My Research account

Required*

Username

Used to sign into your account.

Password

Use 8 or more letters and numbers.

Retype password First name

Displays on screen when you are signed in.

Last name

Displays in emails sent from your account.

Email address

Used for account confirmation, forgotten password reminders, and alerts.

Account Id

Account Indentifier

I consent to the collection and use of my personal information consistent with the Privacy Policy, and I acknowledge that use of the service is subject to the Terms and Conditions. Without your consent, we cannot create an account. I want to link my new My Research account to my RefWorks account. Learn more

If you have a RefWorks account, save your login details here to keep your My Research citations and folders synchronized with RefWorks. You can add these settings later to the RefWorks Settings page, available from the My Account tab in My Research. Instructions for Athens and Shibboleth users.

Log-in name Password Group code

Optional - Enter if your RefWorks account is provided by a different institution

Create account Cancel

Forgot your password? layer

Forgot your password?

Enter your My Research email address, and we'll email your username and password.

Email address: Send Cancel ×[[missing key: buttonClose]]

Select language

Exit layer

Exit

Would you like to exit ProQuest or continue working? Tab through to the exit button or continue working link.Help icon>×

Exit ProQuest, or continue working?

Exit Continue working

Note: Items you have selected during your session and your list of recent searches are not saved unless you have signed into your account and added them to My Research.

Your session is about to expire layer

Your session is about to expire

Your session is about to expire. Sessions expire after 30 minutes of inactivity. Tab through the options to the continue working button or end session link.Help icon Close icon Close icon×

Your session will expire in .

Sessions expire after 30 minutes of inactivity.

Continue working End Session

Note: Items you have selected during your session and your list of recent searches are not saved unless you have signed into your account and added them to My Research.

More like this

A Framework for Addressing the Needs of Students Prenatally Exposed to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Watson, Silvana M R

Westby, Carol E

Gable, Robert A

Preventing School Failure

Vol. 52, Iss. 1,

Abstract

Translate Abstract

Undo Translation

Translate

The full text may take 40-60 seconds to translate; larger documents may take longer.

OverlayEnd

In this article, the authors review learning and behavioral problems of children exposed prenatally to alcohol and other drugs, focusing on executive-function deficits such as difficulty shifting tasks, maintaining attention, and manipulating information in working memory. They discuss various risk factors associated with prenatal drug exposure so that educators can better understand the nature of the disorder and choose more effective classroom interventions that address the deficits of these students. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Full Text

Translate Full text Undo Translation TranslateUndo Translation Press the Escape key to close FromArabic Auto Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Czech Danish English Finnish French German Hebrew Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Polish Portuguese Russian Spanish Swedish Turkish ToArabic Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Czech Danish Finnish French German Hebrew Indonesian Italian Japanese Korean Polish Portuguese Russian Spanish Swedish Turkish Translate Translation in progress... [[missing key: loadingAnimation]]
The full text may take 40-60 seconds to translate; larger documents may take longer.
Cancel OverlayEnd
Turn on search term navigationTurn on search term navigation
Jump to first hit

ABSTRACT: In this article, the authors review learning and behavioral problems of children exposed prenatally to alcohol and other drugs, focusing on executive-function deficits such as difficulty shifting tasks, maintaining attention, and manipulating information in working memory. They discuss various risk factors associated with prenatal drug exposure so that educators can better understand the nature of the disorder and choose more effective classroom interventions that address the deficits of these students.

KEYWORDS: attention, executive function, interventions, prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs, working memory

DURING THE PAST DECADE, the number of children born to mothers who abused alcohol and other drugs during their pregnancy has increased dramatically. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1996), approximately 5.5% of pregnant women use an illicit drug during pregnancy. These figures are alarming, particularly when considering that the risk factors associated with prenatal drug and alcohol exposure are varied, complex, and long lasting.

Research on children prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol reveals the numerous negative effects of maternal alcohol or drug use on infants and young children (Bateman & Chiriboga, 2000; Chiriboga, Brust, Bateman, & Hauser, 1999; Gottwald & Thurman, 1994; Sinclair, 1998; Vathy, 1995). Many problems that are not apparent during infancy can appear at an older age (Hans, 1996). For example, language disorders and neurobehavioral problems may go undetected until the child is required to perform more cognitively demanding tasks, often when entering school (Watson & Westby, 2003a, 2003b). In general, children exposed to drugs and alcohol are susceptible to a range of developmental problems that can impinge on and negatively influence teaching and learning.

Educators have not always recognized or understood the nature of the learning and behavioral difficulties experienced by students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs. Consequently educators have often underserved these students. Watson and Westby (2003a) interviewed school professionals and observed a number of teachers working with students prenatally exposed to drugs or alcohol. They found that school personnel often neglected the needs of these children. In a related study, Watson (2003) surveyed general and special education teachers and speech-language pathologists from five school districts and found that all three groups agreed that they needed (a) knowledge about this population of students and (b) more training and information on how to teach and modify instruction for them. Watson, Gable, and Tonelson (2003) surveyed university faculty regarding preparation of general educators, special educators, and speechlanguage pathologists to work in schools with students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs. The results confirmed that, in general, teacher education and speechlanguage pathology programs provide limited information to either preservice or inservice professionals on students who have been prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol. Last, Kim, Sugai, and Kim (1999) surveyed preschool educators and reported that 88% of respondents acknowledged they needed more information on educating children prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs.

Many students who were exposed to drugs and alcohol are now in or will soon enter the school system. Given the harmful effects of alcohol and drugs, it is important that education professionals have knowledge of the effects of prenatal drug exposure on teaching and learning. In this article, we discuss the common learning and behavioral characteristics of children prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs, highlighting executive-function deficits as the basis for many of these children's learning and behavioral problems. We present a framework for executive functioning proposed by Barkley (1997, 2000) and show how strategies that have been considered best practices for developing executive functioning in students with traumatic brain injury (TBI), learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism can be used to address the academic and social needs of children who have been prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs.

Characteristics of Students Prenatally Exposed to Drugs and Alcohol

Researchers indicate that there are clusters of characteristics present in most students who were prenatally exposed to drugs or alcohol (Delaney-Black et al., 2000; Hubbard, 1998; Mattson, Schoenfeld, & Riley, 2001; Sinclair, 1998; Soby, 1994; Watson & Westby, 2003a). The physical, cognitive, academic, social, and emotional impairments of these students can range from mild to severe. Typically, these students exhibit learning difficulties manifested in fine-motorcontrol deficits, auditory processing deficits, language delays and disorders, and mathematical comprehension difficulties. For some children, these deficits may exist in the presence of relatively normal performance on traditional IQ measures (Connor, Sampson, Bookstein, Barr, & Streissguth, 2000; Kerns, Don, Mateer, & Streissguth, 1997; Kodituwakku, May, Clericuzio, & Weers, 2001). The students also may exhibit a variety of social-emotional behavioral difficulties. For example, some children are overly friendly and social to all persons, others are defiant and aggressive, and others may be socially withdrawn (Cohen & Erwin, 1994; Delaney- Black et al.; Sinclair; Watson & Westby, 2003a).

Executive Function Deficits

Researchers have characterized many of the difficulties exhibited by students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs as deficits in executive function and other cognitive processes (Connor et al., 2000; Kodituwakku, Kalberg, & May, 2001; Mattson, Goodman, Caine, Delis, & Riley, 1999). Ylvisaker, Szekeres, and Feeney (1998) defined executive function as a group of control functions that direct and regulate cognitive behavior (e.g., paying attention, remembering information) and social behavior (e.g., being polite around people you do not like). Deficits in executive function include difficulties with self-regulation, poor attention, distractibility, and difficulty organizing and planning behaviors (Barkley, 1997; Ylvisaker et al.). Researchers have documented problems with executive function in individuals with a variety of disorders, such as autism, ADHD, LD, and TB and in children who have been exposed to alcohol and other drugs (Barkley, Edwards, Laneri, Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001; Ewing-Cobbs, Levin, & Fletcher, 1998; Hardan, Minshew, & Keshavan, 2000; Russell, 1997).

Students who have been prenatally exposed have particular difficulty (a) learning new material (e.g., encoding information), (b) shifting or changing strategies (e.g., being flexible in problem-solving), and (c) knowing when to apply certain rules in daily situations (e.g., asking permission to leave the room; Coles, 2001; Connor et al., 2000; Kodituwakku, Kalberg, et al., 2001). Thus, students with prenatal alcohol and drug exposure have problems with attention shifting, working memory, abstraction, planning, and problem solving.

Barkley (1997, 2000) proposed a model of executive functioning in which deficits in the ability to control behaviors adversely affect the development of four components (described below) of executive function in which deficits in behavioral inhibition influence the development of other components of executive function. Behavioral or response inhibition involves the ability to inhibit impulsive responding, stop inappropriate or ineffective behavior, and shield oneself from distractions. Deficits in behavior inhibition disrupt working memory, which is the capacity to hold mental representations in mind and manipulate the representations to guide behavior. This negatively influences a student's ability to self-regulate mood and motivation and integrate behaviors to achieve goals.

1. Nonverbal working memory involves the ability to recognize and remember the relationship of present events to previous experiences. Using nonverbal working memory, individuals form mental models to visually represent activities and events. This executive function underlies a student's ability to imitate complex sequences of behaviors. The ability to use nonverbal working memory for developing mental models also enables the student to activate past events, which allows for hindsight, forethought, and a sense of time.

2. Internalization of self-directed speech or verbal working memory involves the use of language to code nonverbal mental models. Individuals use this linguistic coding to selftalk and to describe, reflect, self-instruct, and question. This results in the internalization of rules to manage behavior and guide moral reasoning. By internalizing the language of instruction and rules of behavior, a student is able to act appropriately when adults are not around. Without internalized speech, students may not succeed in developing an appreciation of rule-governed behavior; without this, they will have difficulty in regulating their own behavior.

3. Self-regulation of mood, motivation, and level of arousal involves the ability to moderate feelings, motivate oneself in the absence of external consequences, and arouse oneself in the pursuit of future goals. This self-regulation depends on the ability to visualize or conceptualize an experience or idea (nonverbal working memory) and use language (verbal working memory) to describe and reflect on one's moods and emotions and the moods and emotions of others.

4. Reconstitution, or problem solving, is the ability to analyze observed behaviors and synthesize new behaviors in pursuit of a goal. Reconstitution is essential for all problem solving, and it requires the integration of all three other components of executive function (i.e., nonverbal and verbal working memory and self-regulation of mood, motivation, and level of arousal). If students have deficits in other aspects of executive function, they will have deficits in problem solving.

These components of executive function build on one another and are highly interactive. Students who have problems in areas of executive function often lack awareness of their behavior, emotions, and thought processes. Consequently, these students have difficulty adjusting their behavior in response to the social and physical environment. They also find it difficult to plan short- and long-term behaviors and goals. Last, executive-function deficits can impair a student's ability to see cause-and-effect relationships, control impulses, and display appropriate social behaviors (Denckla, 1996; Kodituwakku, May, et al., 2001).

Evaluation of Executive-Function Deficits

Educators have typically used several tasks to evaluate executive functioning. Teachers do not have to have the formal tests to complete the activities; instead, they can use available materials to assess students. We group the following assessment tests by what they measure:

Nonverbal Working Memory

Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised Visual Reproduction (VMS-RVR; Wechsler, 1987). In this subset, a child is presented with four designs and asked to look at each design for 10 s and immediately draw the design when it is removed. Approximately 30 min later, the child is asked to draw each design again. This subtest measures nonverbal learning and working memory. The tasks require simultaneous storage and processing of information.

Verbal Working Memory

Word fluency or letter-word fluency. Verbal fluency tests, known by several terms (e.g., controlled oral word association), include tests of letter and semantic fluency. Several child cognitive and language assessments ask children to name in 1 min as many items as they can that belong to a category (e.g., animals, things to eat, things to wear). Older children and adults are asked to generate as many words as possible that begin with particular letters (Benton, Hamster, Varney, & Spreen, 1998). Verbal fluency tests have two components that are associated with frontal-lobe function: linguistics and ideation. Performance is assumed to reflect automatic lexical access, efficient lexical production, working memory, and the ability to self-monitor, initiate, and shift. However, performance is not independent of intelligence, vocabulary skill, or attention.

Competing Language Processing Task (Gaulin & Campbell, 1984). This task places demand on working memory. The student is asked to read simple sentences (e.g., "Trees have leaves"; "Babies drive trucks"). Groups of sentences are presented in increasing set sizes, from two to six sentences. The student first must respond to the truth value of each statement by indicating whether the statement is true or false and then remember the last word of each sentence.

Digit span backward. The task of reciting numbers backward appears on several language and cognitive tests (e.g., Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd ed.) and demands working memory because it requires both storage and processing of information.

Self-Regulation and Problem Solving

Trail Making Tests A and B (Reitan, 1992). This device measures several cognitive domains, including psychomotor speed, cognitive flexibility, divided attention, sequencing, and visual tracking. Trail A consists of numbers randomly placed on a page. The participant draws a line from one number to the next in sequential order. Scoring is based on accuracy and time. Accurate performance on this test relies on attention and visual-motor speed and tracking, intact visual-directional scanning, and the handling of serial information. Trail B has both numbers and letters randomly scattered on a page. The participant alternates drawing a line between numbers and letters in sequential order (e.g., 1, A, 2, B, 3, C). Trail B particularly taps executive functioning (e.g., planning and cognitive flexibility). Trail Color is a version adapted for use with children and is designed to minimize any effects of reading ability (D'Elia & Satz, 1989).

The Stroop color and word test (Trennery, Crosson, DeBoe, & Leber, 1988; Golden & Freshwater, 2002). This well-known and highly researched assessment tool uses cards with the names of colors spelled out (e.g., blue) but printed in the ink of another color (e.g., red). The student is then instructed to say the name of the ink rather than the word. This task requires the student to inhibit the normal tendency when reading, which is to attend to the word and ignore the ink color. It is a short measure of selective or focused attention-the ability to change a response when presented with a novel one-and inhibition (Baron, 2004; Lezak, 1995). An adapted version of this task for young children (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994), the Day-Night Stroop, includes two kinds of cards. One face of half of the cards is white with a bright sun, to which the child is instructed to say "night." The other half of the cards have a black face with a moon and stars, to which the child is told to say "day."

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Grant & Berg, 1993; Heaton, 1981). This test, which can be used with people from 6.5 years old through adulthood, measures inhibition, abstract reasoning, sustained attention, strategic planning, organized searching, problem solving, and the ability to use feedback to shift cognitive sets and direct behavior. Four cards varying in color, shape, and number are placed in front of the student. The student is asked to match cards from the two decks with one of the four key cards, and the examiner tells the student whether the cards were sorted correctly. After 10 consecutive correct matches, the sorting principle is changed without the student's knowledge, and the examiner gives negative feedback to the student on his or her previous successful strategy. The student's score reflects the ability to inhibit previous response patterns and a shift to a new response set. Poor performance reflects ineffective hypothesis testing and perseverance and difficulty maintaining a mental set in the presence of competing stimuli.

Children and adults with executive-function deficits (e.g., ADHD) generally exhibit poorer performance on the aforementioned instruments than do those without executive-function deficits (Lovejoy et al., 1999; Marton & Schwartz, 2003; Pineda, Ardila, Rosselli, Cadavid, & Mancheno, 1998).

Several researchers indicate the tasks are mediated by the prefrontal areas of the brain, which are responsible for executive functioning (Barkley, Murphy, & Bush, 2001; Baron, 2004; Lovejoy et al., 1999; Pineda et al., 1998). Frattali and Grafman (2005) recommended the assessment of the full range of behaviors that are presumed to be impaired. This included the assessment of executive function and language or discourse areas, which will provide an understanding of their relationship and the causal nature of the deficits. Traditional language tests, such as Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- 4 (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) or the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1998), can be used to assess students' language abilities.

Programming for Students Prenatally Exposed to Alcohol and Other Drugs

Education personnel must select and implement programs of interventions. If the interventions are not carefully matched to a student's specific needs and carried out systematically and intensively, they are not likely to produce large, long-term, and generalized results (Abikoff, 1991; Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; Jensen, Hinshaw, & Kraemer, 2001; Shapiro, DuPaul, & Bradley-Klug, 1998). School personnel must identify not only the areas of the deficit but also the nature of the deficit (e.g., knowledge, performance, fluency). Students with knowledge deficits do not have the information or skill in their repertoire or do not know how to use a skill in a particular situation. Students with performance deficits have the knowledge and skills, but they fail to use them at acceptable levels. Fluency deficits are the result of insufficient exposure to models of the behaviors, insufficient opportunities to practice the behaviors, or inconsistent reinforcement of their performance of the behaviors. Table 1 presents various evidence-based interventions, along with characteristics of executive-function deficit, examples of assessment instruments, examples of observable behaviors of the deficit, and the target of the intervention.

Teachers can use cognitive modeling through role-play situations to teach students the problem-solving and selfregulation skills necessary for self-determination. Teachers, however, may have to coach students during emotional interactions to help them remember the skills in real situations. Coaching involves questioning students during interactions so they can learn how to plan to compensate for skill deficits and reach their goals (e.g., "I see that you are having a hard time starting your assignment. What should you do when you do not know what to do?"). Teachers should look for daily opportunities (e.g., getting in line, preparing for a lesson, playing a game) for scaffolding interactions and introduce temporary supports that can be systematically withdrawn as the student internalizes the strategy; if opportunities do not normally occur, the teacher may need to create chances for students to engage in the behavior. Shure's (2001) interpersonal cognitive problem-solving program, I Can Problem Solve, is one source of information on scaffolded problem-solving steps for teachers.

With parental permission, educators may videotape students when they are engaged in inappropriate behaviors and have them evaluate their actions through a self-rating scale with adult guidance. Then teachers would assist the students in setting goals for developing compensatory skills to offset their executive-function deficits. These and related activities will facilitate students' awareness of their own behaviors and help them set realistic goals (Crosson, 1996; Ylvisaker et al., 1998).

Conclusion

Educators should not assume that every child who exhibits executive-function difficulties has been prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs. However, it is important to recognize the characteristics of executive dysfunction, regardless of its cause, if students are to receive appropriate interventions. Having knowledge about the students' problems, collecting information about students and their behavior, and completing a functional behavioral assessment to determine the function of the behavior will help teachers to accommodate students' needs better (Buck, Polloway, Kirkpatrick, Patton, & Fad, 2000) and avoid misinterpretations of students' academic and social behavior problems (e.g., calling students "stubborn" when they do not follow directions, or calling them "lazy" when they do not complete assignments). For example, knowing that the student has a disorder of biological origin and that the disorder is associated with deficits in self-regulatory behaviors (e.g., ADHD and prenatal exposure to alcohol or drugs), educators will implement interventions to compensate for the student's problems (e.g., using verbal and visual cues and providing shortened assignments). Therefore, informed teachers will neither require the student to sit still for long periods of time nor will they punish the student for not paying attention because educators will be considering the behavior as a manifestation of the student's disability.

A growing number of students suffer the negative effects of maternal drug abuse. For that reason, providing quality education to children who are at risk because of prenatal drug or alcohol exposure is becoming the shared responsibility of general educators, special educators, and support personnel (Coleman & Webber, 2002; Vincent, Poulsen, Cole, Woodruff, & Griffith, 1991). According to Kerns et al. (1997), school personnel need to understand the nature of these students' deficits to assist them in the classroom. These children may not have identified disabilities, but they are biologically and, many times, environmentally predisposed to having neurobehavioral, educational, social, and emotional problems. It follows that, in planning and developing educational programs, school personnel must be able to accurately assess how the children's physical and cognitive difficulties may impact the teaching-learning process. Educators must be able to identify students' strengths and weaknesses and develop pupil-specific classroom interventions that are aligned with diverse learning needs. School administrators should better prepare and support educators facing the challenges these students pose to successful classroom instruction. System-wide program efforts that emphasize early intervention would go a long way in addressing the social, emotional, and academic needs of this heterogeneous group of students.

REFERENCES

Abikoff, H. (1991). Cognitive training in ADHD children: Less to it than meets the eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 205-209.

Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York: Guilford.

Barkley, R. A. (2000). The executive functions and ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1064-1068.

Barkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., & Metevia, L. (2001). Executive functioning, temporal discounting, and sense of time in adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 541-557.

Barkley, R. A., Murphy, K. R., & Bush, T. (2001). Time perception and reproduction in young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychology, 15, 351-360.

Baron, I. S. (2004). Neuropsychological evaluation of the child. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bateman, D. A., & Chiriboga, C. A. (2000). Dose-response effect of cocaine on newborn head circumference. Retrieved March 27, 2005, from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/contentby- date.0.dtl

Benton, A. L., Hamster, K. de S., Varney, N., & Spreen, O. (1998). Contributions to Neurological Assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford.

Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Kirkpatrick, M. A., Patton, J. R., & Fad, K. M. (2000). Developing behavioral intervention plans: A sequential approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 3-9.

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1998). Comprehension Assessment of Spoken Language. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Chiriboga, C. A., Brust, J. C. M., Bateman, D., & Hauser,W. A. (1999). Dose-response effect of fetal cocaine exposure on newborn neurologic function. Pediatrics, 103, 79-85.

Cohen, S., & Erwin, E. J. (1994). Characteristics of children with prenatal drug exposure being served in preschool special education programs in New York City. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 232-253.

Coleman, M. C., & Webber, J. (2002). Emotional and behavioral disorders: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Coles, C. D. (2001). Fetal alcohol exposure and attention: Moving beyond ADHD. Alcohol Research and Health, 25, 199-203.

Connor, P. D., Sampson, P. D., Bookstein, F. L., Barr, H. M., & Streissguth, A. P. (2000). Direct and indirect effects of prenatal alcohol damage on executive function. Developmental Neuropsychology, 18, 331-354.

Crosson, B. (1996, December). Treatment of disorders resulting from frontal lobe dysfunction. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Course in Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychology, Treatment of Behavioral Disorders, Lake Buena Vista, FL.

Delaney-Black, V., Covington, C., Templin, T., Ager, J., Nordstrom- Klee, B., Martier, S., Leddick, L., Czerwinski, R. H., & Skiol, R. J. (2000). Teacher-assessed behavior of children prenatally exposed to cocaine. Pediatrics, 106, 782-791.

D'Elia, L., & Satz, P. (1989). Color Trails 1 and 2. Odessa, FL: Psychological Corporation.

Denckla, M. B. (1996). A theory and model of executive function: A neuropsychological perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 263-278). Baltimore: Bookes.

Ewing-Cobbs, L., Levin, H. S., & Fletcher, J. M. (1998). Neuropsychological sequelae after pediatric traumatic brain injury: Advances since 1985. In M. Ylvisaker (Ed.), Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: Children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 11-26). Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Frattali, C., & Grafman, J. (2005). Language and discourse deficits following prefrontal cortex damage. In L. L. LaPointe (Ed.), Aphasia and related neurogenic language disorders (3rd ed., pp. 51-67). New York: Thieme.

Gaulin, C., & Campbell, T. (1984). Procedure for assessing verbal working memory in normal school-age children. Perceptual Motor Skills, 79, 55-64.

Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 3 1/2 to 7 years on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129-153.

Golden, C. J., & Freshwater, S. M. (2002). Stroop color and word test: Revised examiner's manual. Chicago: Stoelting.

Gottwald, S. R., & Thurman, S. K. (1994). The effects of prenatal cocaine exposure on mother-infant interaction and infant arousal in the newborn period. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 217-231.

Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. A. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with highincidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 331-344.

Hans, S. L. (1996). Prenatal drug exposure: Behavioral functioning in late childhood and adolescence. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series, 164, 261-276.

Hardan, A. Y., Minshew, N. J., & Keshavan, M. S. (2000). Corpus collosum size in autism. Neurology, 55, 1033-1036.

Heaton, R. K. (1981). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Hubbard, L. J. (1998). Teachers' attitudes toward children of drugrelated births. New York: Garland.

Jensen, P. S., Hinshaw, S. P., & Kraemer, H. C. (2001). ADHD comorbidity findings from the MTA study: Comparing comorbid subgroups. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 147-158.

Kerns, K. A., Don, A., Mateer, C. A., & Streissguth, A. P. (1997). Cognitive deficits in nonretarded adults with fetal alcohol syndrome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 685-693.

Kim, Y. M., Sugai, G. M., & Kim, G. (1999). Early intervention needs of children at risk due to prenatal drug exposure: A survey of early childhood educators. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13, 685-693.

Kodituwakku, P. W., Kalberg, W., & May, P. A. (2001). The effects of prenatal alcohol exposure on executive functioning. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 192-198.

Kodituwakku, P. W., May, P. A., Clericuzio, C. L., & Weers, D. (2001). Emotion-related learning in individuals exposed to alcohol: An investigation of the relation between set shifting, extinction of responses, and behavior. Neuropsychologia, 39, 699-708.

Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lovejoy, D. W., Ball, J. D., Keats, M., Stutts, M. L., Spain, E. H., Janda, L., et al. (1999). Neuropsychological performance of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Diagnostic classification estimates for measure of frontal lobe/ executive functioning. Journal of International Neuropsychology Society, 5, 177-196.

Marton, K., & Schwartz, R. G. (2003). Working memory capacity and language processes in children with specific language impairments. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 46, 1138-1153.

Mattson, S. N., Goodman, A. M., Caine, C., Delis, D. C., & Riley, E. P. (1999). Executive functioning in children with heavy prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23, 1808-1815.

Mattson, S. N., Schoenfeld, A, M., & Riley, E. P. (2001). Teratogenic effects of alcohol on brain and behavior. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 185-192.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1996). National pregnancy and health survey: Drug use among women delivering live births, 1992. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Public Health (NIH Publication No. 96-3819).

Pineda, D., Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., Cadavid, C., & Mancheno, S. (1998). Executive dysfunctions in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. International Journal of Neuroscience, 96, 222-233.

Reitan, R. M. (1992). Trail making tests: Manual for administration and scoring. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.

Russell, J. (Ed.). (1997). Autism as an executive disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.

Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

Shapiro, E. S., DuPaul, G. J., & Bradley-Klug, K. L. (1998). Selfmanagement as a strategy to improve the classroom behavior of adolescents with ADHD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 545-555.

Shure, M. B. (2001). I can problem solve (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Sinclair, E. (1998). Head Start children at risk: Relationship of prenatal drug exposure to identification of special needs and subsequent special education kindergarten placement. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 125-133.

Soby, J. M. (1994). Prenatal exposure to drugs/alcohol: Characteristics and educational implications of fetal alcohol syndrome and cocaine/polydrug effects. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Trennery, M. R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W. R. (1988). Stroop Neurological Screening Test Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Vathy, I. (1995). Effects of prenatal morphine and cocaine on postnatal behaviors and brain transmitters. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series, 158, 88-114.

Vincent, L. J., Poulsen, M. K., Cole, C. K., Woodruff, G., & Griffith, D. R. (1991). Born substance exposed, educationally vulnerable. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED339169)

Watson, S. M. R. (2003). What educators know about students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs: A survey. Unpublished manuscript.

Watson, S. M. R., Gable, R. A., & Tonelson, S. W. (2003). Students prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol: A survey of school personnel preparation. Teacher Educator, 38, 190-208.

Watson, S. M. R., & Westby, C. E. (2003a). Prenatal drug exposure: Implications for personnel preparation. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 204-214.

Watson, S. M. R., & Westby, C. E. (2003b). Strategies for addressing the executive function impairments of students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24, 194-204.

Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

Ylvisaker, M., Szekeres, S. F., & Feeney, T. (1998). Cognitive rehabilitation: Executive functions. In M. Ylvisaker (Ed.), Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: Children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 221-269). Newton, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Silvana M. R. Watson is an associate professor of special education at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Her research interests are learning and behavioral problems, language, cognition, and cultural and linguistic diversity. Carol E. Westby is a visiting professor at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. Her research interests are narrative and expository text comprehension and production in diverse populations, social-emotional underpinnings of communication, and assessment and intervention with students communication and executive-function deficits. Robert A. Gable is Constance and Colgate Darden Professor of Special Education, Old Dominion University, and is an executive editor of Preventing School Failure. His research interests are serious behavioral disorders, positive behavior interventions, early intervention, and teacher training. Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications

Show less