Abstract

One of the few consistencies found in the literature on learning disabilities is that there is little agreement about the meaning, behavioral correlates, or etiology of this term. There is even dispute over whether it is an homogeneous or a heterogeneous diagnostic entity (e.g., Fisk & Rourke, 1983; Goldman, Thibert, & Rourke, 1979; Pirozzola & Campanella, 1981; Satterfield, Cantwell, & Satterfield, 1974). Within the literature, “learning disability” has often been used synonymously with hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder, minimal brain dysfunction, and minimal brain damage, as well as specific learning disorders. This has further supported the idea that there is a single phenomenon that manifests itself in these various forms. The tendency toward a unitary view of learning disabilities is most likely the result of almost a century of research that has been primarily confined to developmental reading disorders (Pirozzola & Campanella, 1981). More recently, increasing attention has been given to the possibility that these separate terms may be describing subgroups subsumed under this general clinical category (Pirozzola, 1979; Rourke, 1975; Satz & Morris, 1981).

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call