Commentary: Response to Christensen

Abstract

C hristensen's comment contains many important ideas about the socially constructed nature of definitions of learning disability. Many of these points are, however, somewhat orthogonal to the theoretical issues that were the focus of my review. Individuals often talk past each other in the field of learning disabilities because definitions of learning disabilities serve multiple purposes, a point on which Barbara Keogh (1983, 1986, 1987) has written lucidly. Some definitions serve scientific purposes and can be judged by research criteria. But definitions of learning disabilities serve other purposes as well. They have been used by school personnel as a mechanism to leverage school services for low achieving students. Additionally, definitions have been used by parents' groups as advocacy tools to force legislative recognition and to direct attention and resources to certain groups of children. These various definitions are often in conflict