Comparing the Effectiveness of the Intervention Based on Phonological Awareness and Nimanix on Working Memory and Executive Functions of Students with Specific Learning Disorder

Zare, Marzieh; Ghasemi, Masoud; Salehi , Mahdieh

Volume 15 - Articles-1404 MEJDS (2025) 15: 38 | Back to browse issues page

Ethics code: IR.IAU.CTB.REC.1403.022

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Zare M, Ghasemi M, Salehi M. Comparing the Effectiveness of the Intervention Based on Phonological Awareness and Nimanix on Working Memory and Executive Functions of Students with Specific Learning Disorder. MEJDS 2025; 15 (0) :38-38
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-3552-en.html

Comparing the Effectiveness of the Intervention Based on Phonological Awareness and Nimanix on Working Memory and Executive Functions of Students with Specific Learning Disorder

Marzieh Zare¹

, Masoud Ghasemi ^*²

, Mahdieh Salehi²

1- PhD Student, Department of Exceptional Children Psychology, Psychology and Educational Sciences Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract: (317 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objectives: One of the major challenges for children with learning disabilities is the presence of deficits in executive functions. One of the important components of executive functions is working memory. In recent neuropsychological theories, executive functions and working memory have been identified as key factors in the occurrence of specific learning disabilities and functional problems in students. Therefore, executive functions play a pivotal role in the academic performance of students with specific learning disabilities. By reviewing the research literature, it is evident that limited studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of phonological awareness training and Nimanix training in improving the working memory and executive functions of students with specific learning disabilities. Additionally, no research has been conducted to compare these two interventions in terms of improving the working memory and executive functions of students with specific learning disabilities. So, the present study aims to compare the effectiveness of phonological awareness-based intervention and Nimanix intervention on working memory and executive functions in students with specific learning disabilities.
Methods: The research method was quasi-experimental with a pretest-posttest and follow-up design with two experimental groups and one control group. The statistical population consisted of all students with specific learning disorders residing in Tehran, Iran. Of whom, 60 eligible volunteers (33 boys and 27 girls) were selected using a purposive sampling method. Then, 20 students were randomly assigned to the first experimental group (intervention based on phonological awareness), 20 to the second experimental group (intervention based on Nemanix training), and 20 to the control group. However, during the implementation, three people in the first experimental group, four people in the second experimental group, and four people in the control group dropped out. The inclusion criteria included having an average IQ score (90-109) based on the Tehran-Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, providing informed consent to participate in the research, speaking the Persian language, being monolingual, and not having any disorders other than learning disorders. After determining the inclusion criteria, the exclusion criteria included non-cooperation and absence from more than two training sessions. Data collection tools included the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale for Children and Adolescents (BDEFS-CA) (Barkley, 2012) and the Tehran-Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Afrooz & Kamkar, 2006). The experimental group participated in thirteen 60-minute sessions of phonological awareness intervention, and the group receiving Nemanix-based intervention participated in 13 60-minute sessions. Statistical methods, including analysis of variance with repeated measures and the Bonferroni post hoc test, were used in SPSS version 23 software for data analysis. The significance level was set at 0.05.
Results: The results showed that both the group effect and the time effect were significant for the variables of working memory and executive functions (p<0.001). There were significant differences in these variables between the three stages (pretest, posttest, and follow-up) for the experimental groups and the control group (p<0.001). There were no differences in the variables of working memory and executive functions between the studied groups in the pretest stage (p>0.99). A significant difference was observed between the Nemanix training and phonological awareness experimental groups and the control group in the variables of working memory and executive functions (p<0.05). Additionally, there was a significant difference between the Nemanix training and phonological awareness experimental groups in terms of mean scores at posttest and follow-up (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Nemanix training is more effective than phonological awareness. Therefore, Nemanix training can be used as an adjunct method to enhance working memory and executive functions in students with Specific Learning Disorder.

Keywords: Phonological awareness training, Nemanix training, Working memory, Executive functions, Learning disorders

Full-Text [PDF 316 kb] (85 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Psychology

References

1. Grigorenko EL, Compton DL, Fuchs LS, Wagner RK, Willcutt EG, Fletcher JM. Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. Am Psychol. 2020;75(1):37–51. [DOI]

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM–5TM, 5th ed. Arlington, VA, US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.; 2013. [DOI]

3. Mammarella IC, Lucangeli D, Cornoldi C. Spatial working memory and arithmetic deficits in children with nonverbal learning difficulties. J Learn Disabil. 2010;43(5):455–68. [DOI]

4. Benallie KJ, McClain MB, Bakner KE, Roanhorse T, Ha J. Executive functioning in children with ASD + ADHD and ASD + ID: a systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2021;86:1–21. [DOI]

5. Barkley RA. Attention–deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment, 4th ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2015.

6. Baddeley A. Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

7. Sainio PJ, Eklund KM, Ahonen TPS, Kiuru NH. The role of learning difficulties in adolescents’ academic emotions and academic achievement. J Learn Disabil. 2019;52(4):287–98. [DOI]

8. Zhang X, Räsänen P, Koponen T, Aunola K, Lerkkanen MK, Nurmi JE. Early cognitive precursors of children’s mathematics learning disability and persistent low achievement: a 5–year longitudinal study. Child Dev. 2020;91(1):7–27. [DOI]

9. Viktorin J, Loosová L. Teachers’ awareness of the development of perceptual motor functions in pupils with mild intellectual disabilities at a primary school in the Czech republic. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education. 2020;9(2):97–119.

10. Viktorin J. Social barriers of pupils and students with specific learning disabilities. Multidisciplinary Journal of School Education. 2022;11(1):171–88. [DOI]

11. Doabler CT, Clarke B, Kosty D, Fien H, Smolkowski K, Liu M, et al. Measuring the quantity and quality of explicit instructional interactions in an empirically validated tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2021;44(1):50–62. [DOI]

12. Aravena S, Tijms J, Snellings P, van der Molen MW. Predicting responsiveness to intervention in dyslexia using dynamic assessment. Learning and Individual Differences. 2016;49:209–15. [DOI]

13. Baezzat F, Eizadifard R. Effect of phonological awareness training package on reduction of spelling errors of primary school students with writing disorder. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2012;6(1):55–60. [Persian] [Article]

14. Blair J. Using the technique of mindfulness in people with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Practice. 2020;23(4):27–32. [DOI]

15. Luan X, Kawasaki Y, Chen Q, Sugimori E. Mental–imagery–based mnemonic training: a new kind of cognitive training. Front Psychol. 2021;12:740829. [DOI]

16. Afrooz GA, Kamkari K. Principals of psychometry and intelligence testing. Tehran: University of Tehran Press; 2010.

17. Barkley RA. Barkley deficits in executive functioning scale children and adolescents. The Guilford Press; 2012.

18. Soltani Kouh Banani S, Zarenezhad S, Soltani Kouh Banani MH, Abazari K. Psychometric properties of Barkley’s children and adolescent functional performance scale. Psychology of Exceptional Individuals. 2018;8(30):19–45. [Persian] [DOI]

19. Roid GH. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. Fifth Edition. Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2003.

20. Gibbons A, Warne RT. First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV. Intelligence. 2019;75, 9–18. [DOI]

21. Zare M, Ghasemi M, Salehi M. Comparison of the efficacy of phonological awareness-based intervention and neimannics on executive functions and problem-solving skills in students with specific learning disorders. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025;24(151):133-50. [Persian] [Article]

22. Schachter RE, Flynn EE, Napoli AR, Piasta SB. Teachers’ perspectives on year two implementation of a kindergarten readiness assessment. Early Education and Development. 2020;31(5):778–95. [DOI]

23. Fong H, Soni A. A systematic review on test anxiety in children and young people with learning difficulties. Support for Learning. 2022;37(1):21–43. [DOI]

24. Vural PI, Aslan E. Emotional freedom techniques and breathing awareness to reduce childbirth fear: a randomized controlled study. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2019;35:224–31. [DOI]