Abstract
Four major points made by Conte and Andrews (this issue) were addressed: (a) the primary cause hypothesis, (b) the prevalence of social skills deficits in children with learning disabilities, (c) the distinction between incidental and intentional learning, and (d) the use of intentional learning contexts in making eligibility decisions. The issues of neurological bases for social skills deficits, social skills deficits as language disabilities, and the distinction between incidental and intentional learning contexts are viewed as irrelevant to children experiencing difficulties in social skills and peer relationships. Children meeting state or district criteria for learning disabilities should receive social skills intervention as specified in an Individualized Education Program.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
