الفهرس 
مدخـل إلـى مشكلـة الدراسـةيوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
المستخلص
The present study aimed to answer a key question which is whether the difference between the performance of children with Down syndrome and that of normal children, in some cognitive abilities (language and working memory), is a quantiative or qualitative difference, and since it is known that there are differences between them, which are for the benefit of ordinary children, the area of interest here is not such differences, but examining their nature whether they are between children with Down syndrome and ordinary children, on one hand, or between the nature of these cognitive abilities within each category separately, on the other hand. The study also aimed at posing a cognitive psychological page for the efficiency of the working memory performance with its three ingredients, and the two sides of the language of children with Down syndrome compared to normal children who are at the same mental age. In addition, it aimed at clarifying the relationship between language and working memory,and the amount of contribution of working memory components in the prediction of receptive and expressive languages for children with Down syndrome and the ordinary ones. The study aimed finally at detecting the qualitative differences between the performance of children with Down syndrome and that of ordinary ones in expressive language and the executive control component.
According to the objectives of the study, its problems were formed in a number of questions, including quantitative ones, such as: 1. Are there differences with statistical significance between children with Down syndrome and the ordinary ones, who are at the same mental age, in both receptive and expressive languages and working memory with its three components (Executive adjustment component, spatial visual component and audio component)? 2. Is there difference in cognitive profile performance ,related to the abilities of language and working memory, differ in children with Down syndrome from the ordinary ones, who are at the same mental age? 3. are there significant statistical differences between receptive language efficiency and that of expressive language in children with Down syndrome at the age group of 3-7 years of mental age and ordinary children at the age group of 3-7 years of mental age? 4. Are there significant statistical differences among the efficiency of the executive adjustment component, the spatial visual component, and the audio component as for children with Down syndrome at the age group from 3-7 years of mental age and ordinary children who are at the age group of 3-7 years of mental age? 5. to what extent does the working memory (with its three components as independent variables) contribute in the prediction of the level of language (receptive and expressive languages as subsidiary variables) in children with Down syndrome, who are at the age group of 3-7 years of mental age and normal children, who are at the age group of 3-7 years of mental age?. The study also included quantitative questions such as: 1. are there quantitative differences in the expressive language between the performance of children with Down syndrome and that of the ordinary ones, who are at the same mental age?, 2. are there quantitative differences in the performance of children with Down syndrome and that of the ordinary ones concerning the executive adjustment component of the working memory battery?.
In order to answer these questions, the study used the comparative, correlative, descriptive method.The study sample consisted of a group of 20 children with Down syndrome, ranging from 6-12 years old, with a mean (8.82), and a standard deviation (1.52), and a group of 20 ordinary children ranging from 3 years and 5 month, to7 years old, with a mean (5.46), and a standard deviation (1.41), with respect to the parity between the two groups in mental age, which ranged from (3-7) years, with a mean (5.15), and a standard deviation (1.57). The tools of the study included: test of photocopied vocabulary, test of expressive language,and working memory battery. The hypotheses of the study were verified by using some statistical methods such as, Kamaamlat link Spearman, Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test, Friedman test, the analysis of gradual decline, and quantiative analyses. The study included a range of findings such as the presence of significant statistical differences between children with Down syndrome and the ordinary ones in receptive language, expressive language, and working memory. Alsothe cognitive psychological page of children with Down syndrome is characterized by an obvious weakness as compared to normal children, in both language and working memory. By looking at the cognitive abilities within the sample of children with Down syndrome, we will find an improvement in receptive language in comparison to the expressive one, in addition to an improvement in the spatial visual component as compared tothe executive adjustment and the audio ones. Also statistically significant differences between receptive language efficiency and that of expressive language, in children with Down syndrome and the ordinary ones, were found. In addition, there were statistically significant differences between the efficiency of the working memory components in children with Down syndrome and the ordinary ones. The results of the gradual regression analysis also indicated that the spatial optical component is the only one that has the potential ability in the prediction of receptive and expressive languages in children with Down syndrome. But as for ordinary children,it was revealed that the spatial visual component and the executive adjustment one have a predictive ability in the receptive and expressive languages. The results of the quantiative analyses referred to an existence of quantiative differences between the performance of children with Down syndrome and that of ordinary children, in the expressive language and the executive adjustment component. Finally, the results were discussed in the light of previous studies, some theoretical frameworks, and explanatory models for the study variables.