Definition Of Learning Disabilities Research Articles

Self-Organization and Learning Disabilities: A Theoretical Perspective for the Interpretation and Understanding of Dysfunction

Central nervous system dysfunction is common to most definitions of learning disabilities (i.e., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 101–476 (IDEA), the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), the Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (ICLD), although not always explicitly stated. Yet, many practitioners and diagnosticians of learning disabilities (LD) do not have a sufficiently comprehensive understanding of the neurological system to be able to interpret disabling conditions from this view. “Specific” learning disability may be an erroneous concept when one considers the underlying dynamic and recursive interactions within the neurological system. A self-organizing systems (SOS) perspective offers a comprehensive framework for understanding and interpreting the complexity of LD and suggests that classification schema tend to undermine the complex nature of the learning disorder. In this article, self-organizing systems principles are explained, and research is reviewed concerning reading and math disabilities and the roles of language, attention, working memory and executive functioning as they relate to LD. Assessment practices are also considered in light of conceptualizing learning disabilities from a self-organizing systems framework.

Social policy and its application to students with learning disabilities in US institutes of higher education

Reviews the current social policy and its application as it relates to the education of students with learning disabilities attending US institutes of higher education. Attempts to differentiate between the legal rights and these students in primary and secondary settings versus those in higher education. Reviews the definition of learning disabilities and eligibility criteria in colleges and universities and gives an overview of common services provided to college studetns with learning disabilities. Summarizes the results of several follow‐up studies on students with learning disabilities who attend post‐secondary institutes.

Recognizing LD, ADHD and TBI in Adults

Many adults have learning problems that interfere with success in educational or vocational endeavors. Learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) share features and may occur together in some individuals. Difficulty in differentiating these disorders may be exacerbated in adulthood, when developmental history is more remote. Basic knowledge of the characteristics of LD, ADHD and TBI can help adult educators to recognize symptoms, make appropriate referrals and individualize instruction and accommodations. Frameworks for Identification Operational definitions of LD and TBI are provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which applies to individuals only from birth through age 22. Children identified under IDEA as having a handicapping condition are eligible for special education services if need is established. ADHD is not specifically identified as an eligibility category under IDEA; however, children with ADHD may be eligible for special education services under the category of Other Health Impaired (OHI). While IDEA does not apply to adult learners who have graduated from high school, if services were obtained during school-age years, documentation of a disability may exist in school records. The Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) is an international organization supporting full participation in higher education for persons with disabilities. AHEAD has published guidelines for adult LD evaluation (Brinckerhoff et al., 1997). Guidelines for ADHD and TBI have not been published. The LD guidelines address qualifications of evaluators, recency of documentation, appropriate clinical documentation of LD, and evidence to establish the rationale to support recommended accommodations. While quite detailed, they do not provide diagnostic criteria. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) provides a clinical framework for the diagnosis of developmental disorders, including LD and ADHD. In the DSM-IV-TR framework, TBI is not a distinct mental disorder, although psychological problems resulting from or associated with brain injury may be diagnosed and the associated brain injury reported. In the DSM-IV-TR, learning disabilities are referred to as disorders, for example, Reading Disorder or Disorder of Written Expression. Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) protect the civil rights of individuals who have disabilities. A disability is described in Section 504 as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Persons with disabilities who have appropriate documentation are eligible for accommodations, modifications, or auxiliary aids, which will enable them to participate and benefit from all postsecondary educational programs and activities. While diagnostic criteria for LD, ADHD, and TBI are not provided in these laws, these disorders clearly fall under the umbrella of disability as described in Section 504 and ADA. While assessment and diagnosis might come from a variety of professionals using different terminology, it is clear that both ADA and Section 504 apply to adults with LD, ADHD or TBI. Descriptive Features The nature and definition of learning disabilities have long been debated (Lyon, 1994). However, most discussions refer to a lack of expected achievement in one or more academic areas in the face of apparently normal intelligence, sensory function, educational and cultural opportunity and motivation. LD is a developmental disorder, with features present from early childhood, although diagnosis may occur much later. IDEA and the DSM-IV-TR refer to determination of a significant discrepancy between general intelligence and achievement in one or more academic areas as a criterion; however, the methodology for determining significant discrepancy is not specified and in practice varies across settings (Lyon, 1994). …

Teaching Strategies that Help Learners with Different Needs

Adult learners with many different special needs are part of all areas of adult education, including GED/ABE programs, higher education, workplace training, ESL programs, and community education programs. Adult education has a long tradition of respect for the diversity of learners and the uniqueness of each learner. Recognizing the amazing range of differences among learners includes understanding the particular needs of individuals with disabilities and is a growing imperative for adult educators (Du Bois, 1998). This article considers what strategies and approaches can be used to help these individuals as well as all adult learners learn effectively in classroom settings, in one-on-one situations and online learning programs. Adult educators are challenged to experiment with the learners as partners and co-learners and to teach responsively (Brookfield, 1990). Learners with disabilities include persons with both visible and invisible disabilities, including orthopedic, health-related, hearing, sight, learning, and speech disabilities (Henderson, 1995). Persons with mental and emotional disabilities also may have a number of conditions with a range of severity. Although there is not an agreed upon definition of learning disabilities (LD), persons with LD have some difficulty in the way they receive, process, store and/or retrieve information (Ross-Gordon, 1989). Jordan (1996, 2000) provides excellent suggestions for teaching adults with learning disabilities. Because individuals may have multiple disabilities, their learning needs also may be varied and complex. Persons with the same condition may have different learning needs and require zero, limited or very substantial accommodations (Gadbow and Du Bois, 1998). To further complicate learning situations, all the other factors that make adult learners a diverse group affect persons with disabilities: differences in age, gender, ethnicity, language, culture, socioeconomic factors, geography, education, learning styles, and past experience. How can teachers or trainers meet the needs of diverse groups of adult learners with such a range of learning needs? An underlying premise is a belief that applies to all areas of adult education, and to all learners: there are many ways to learn and to demonstrate that learning has occurred. Whether in a classroom, working one-to-one with a learner or in an online learning situation, a teacher or facilitator can use strategies and approaches that may increase the learning for all. Students can become co-learners in discovering what works best for them individually and as a group. The following principles can apply to working with adult learners with disabilities, and indeed all adult learners, in classes, in one-on-one settings and in online courses: * Do not assume that you know what is needed to accommodate a learner with a particular disability: ask. Generally the learner can provide the best information on what types of accommodations, if any, are needed. As Vella (1994) suggests, let the learner become the teacher. * Some learners do not know what they do not know. Particularly in the area of assistive technologies, they often do not know there are many recently developed and improved technologies that can aid and support learning: voice recognition programs, screen readers and other computer-related technologies that permit learners with different disabilities to be able to access information and write papers. * However, appropriate training and support services are critical if the individual is to be able to use these new technologies successfully * Knowing a few key resources in the community or region or the contact person for your organization or institution who has such information is very useful when working with students who may not have contacted the appropriate service providers. Teachers and trainers do not have to become experts on these resources or strategies. …

Understanding the ‘Lexia’ in dyslexia: A multidisciplinary team approach to learning disabilities

The historical roots of the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of learning disability are discussed as a reference point for explaining why this definition came into being and why it is inadequate for dealing with the variety of learning and developmental disabilities that present in school settings. A proposal is offered and justified for defining learning disabilities on the basis of profiles for multiple developmental domains that affect learning. In this proposal, developmental dyslexia is differentiated from other learning disabilities. Developmental dyslexia is defined as uneven development (dissociation) between word reading and higher-level processes in the functional reading system. Dyslexics may struggle with word reading because of deficits in phonological processes, orthographic-phonological connections, and/or fluency (rate, automaticity, or executive coordination). The need for both national and international classification schemes for defining specific learning and developmental disabilities for the purposes of educational services and research is emphasized.

Photography as a Diagnostic Metaphor: A Case for Making Strategic Use of Standardized Testing

No AccessPerspectives on Language Learning and EducationArticle1 Jul 2000Photography as a Diagnostic Metaphor: A Case for Making Strategic Use of Standardized Testing Daelene King Daelene King The Learning & Language ClinicSeattle, WA. Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/lle7.1.30 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Brody, L. E. & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 30, 282–296. Google Scholar Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1996). Oral and written language scales.: Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc. Google Scholar Casby, M. W. (1992). The cognitive hypothesis and its influence on speech-language services in schools. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools,, 23, 198–202. LinkGoogle Scholar Friel-Patti, S. (1999). Specific language impairment: Continuing clinical concerns. Topics in Language Disorders,, 20, 1–13. Google Scholar Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1989). The relevance of IQ in the determination of learning disabilities: Abandoning scores as decision makers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 22, 500–503. Google Scholar Hammill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. (1997). Test of Language Development-Intermediate.: Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Google Scholar Hammill, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (1991). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-2.:Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Google Scholar Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification.: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar Leonard, L. B. (1991). Specific language impairment as a clinical category. Language, Speech & Hearing in the Schools, 22, 66–68. Google Scholar Lipke, B. A.,Dickey, S. E.,Selmar, J. W., & Soder, A. L. (1997). Photo Articulation Test-3.: Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Google Scholar Lyon, G. R. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of logic and data. Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 22, 504–506, 512. Google Scholar Maimone, M. (1999). Diagnosis: Undefined. Welcome Home,, 17, 6–7. [Publication of the national nonprofit organization Mothers At Home.] Google Scholar Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 32, 350–361. Google Scholar Wadsworth, S. J.,Olson, R. K.,Pennington, B. F., & DeFries, J. C. (2000). Differential genetic etiology of reading disability as a function of IQ. Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 33, 192–199. Google Scholar Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.: New York: The Psychological Corporation. Google Scholar Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1989). Test of Language Competence-Expanded Edition.: New York: The Psychological Corporation. Google Scholar Zachman, L.,Barrett, M.,Huisingh, R.,Orman, J., & LoGiudice, C. (1994). Test of Problem Solving.: East Moline, IL: Linguisystems, Inc. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 7Issue 1July 2000Pages: 30-33 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Jul 1, 2000 Metrics Topicsasha-sigsasha-topicsleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2000 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

What Definitions of Learning Disability Say and Don't Say

In this article, we analyze critically available definitions of learning disability (LD). The general problem of definition is discussed first followed by a discussion of individual LD definitions from the earliest to the latest. We conclude that LD definitions fail to provide substantive insight into the nature of the condition. The reasons for this failure are discussed in relation to the nature of definition and the difficulties in providing operational definitions of LD that are meaningful and significant. Finally, means for resolving the problem of definition are discussed.

Prevalence of Learning Disabilities at Enrollment in Special Education Students with Behavioral Disorders

The prevalence of learning disabilities (LD) was studied in a sample of 233 students aged 6 to 16 years who were newly identified with behavioral disorders (BD). Using a battery of the WISC-R and the WJPEB achievement tests (i.e., reading, mathematics, and written language), occurrence was determined for four LD definitions: state, ability-achievement, regression-based ability-achievement, and low achievement. The mean Full Scale IQ for the students was 99.0. Over all, 53.2% met at least one LD definition, ranging from 15.9% for low achievement to 42.9% for regression. Almost one-quarter showed overlapping between low achievement and discrepancy definitions. Age, gender, and race had few significant effects on the LD frequencies, and no single achievement area predominated. The need for thorough testing for LD in students with BD at both initial evaluation and subsequent reevaluations is discussed, as well as the subsequent delivery of sufficient LD services.

The LD Label for Relatively Well-Functioning Students: A Critical Analysis

The number of students identified since the mid-1970s as having learning disabilities has produced a corresponding increase in the population of such individuals in postsecondary programs. The Americans with Disabilities Act, along with Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, provide the basis for civil rights for students in higher education. These laws protect individuals who have a substantial limitation in a major life activity when compared with the general population. A disparity between the legal definition and the clinical definition of learning disabilities, which can encompass those identified on the basis of academic underachievement relative to intellectual potential, has stimulated debate about the fairest, most appropriate standard for declaring a student functionally impaired. Extending services to individuals without significant academic impairment may tax or even deplete scarce resources for others in greater needs, distort the normal processes by which individuals select careers, and diminish the credibility of the diagnosis itself.

Issues in the Definition and Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities

This article reviews issues related to the definition of learning disabilities in the context of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. Four major questions are addressed: (a) Who is learning disabled? (b) How should learning disabilities be assessed? (c) Who is qualified to make a decision about whether or not an individual has a learning disability? and (d) What accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and how should they be selected? Although these are complicated and difficult questions, it is possible to develop a simple, reasonable classification system for learning disabilities, and to conduct assessments based on a coherent and relevant set of achievement tests in which individuals who score below a cutoff are considered learning disabled. Scores on IQ tests are irrelevant and not useful and may even be discriminatory. The issues of decision making regarding learning disabilities and appropriate accommodations remain significant dilemmas for the field; resolution of these issues seems virtually impossible without agreement on appropriate procedures for the definition, identification, and assessment of learning disabilities.

The Sociopsychometrics of Learning Disabilities

The Boston University (BU) case illustrates how the psychometrics of ability differences interact with the concept of learning disability and with the sociopolitics of schooling and society. It also illustrates that learning disabilities advocacy will not be on a sound footing as long as the field refuses to rid itself of its IQ fetishism, refuses to jettison its fixation on aptitude-achievement discrepancy, and fails to free clinical practice from the pseudoscientific neurology that plagued the field in the 1970s. A more inclusive definition of learning disability--one that abandons discrepancy notions--and a more self-critical attitude toward its own claims would advance the field of learning disabilities and help to rid it of distractions such as the BU case.

A Spanish Perspective on LD

This article offers an overview of special education in Spain, specifically in the area of learning disabilities (LD). The term LD in Spain implies a different conception of the definition that enjoys considerable international agreement and consensus. We give a historical perspective of Spanish legislation and place the proposed definition of LD in the context of recent school reform in Spain. The support services model and the assessment practices and instructional approaches in the LD field are described. Finally, some educational implications of the new school reform regarding teacher training programs to assist special educational needs are presented.

An Ideological Basis for Definition in Public Argument: A Case Study of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

This paper argues that ideology is a primary basis for definition in public discourse, particularly when defining makes distinctions among individuals. To illustrate this, a case study of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act is presented. The definition of learning disability contained in the act is ideological because it “normalizes” learning and requires evaluations of students according to standards of normalcy. Three potential explanations for this ideology are examined and implications are discussed.

Operationalizing the NJCLD Definition of Learning Disabilities for Ongoing Assessment in Schools

In memory of Samuel A. Kirk, one of the fathers of special education to whom we all owe so much.

Lessons from Research on Dyslexia: Implications for a Classification System for Learning Disabilities

Specific reading disability/dyslexia is examined as the one type of learning disability for which research results are complete and consistent enough to suggest a model. The implications of this model are then considered for all achievement domains and a total of three types of learning disabilities (LD) emerge—specific language impairment, specific reading disability/dyslexia, and specific math disability. When the core symptoms and the secondary symptoms for these types of learning disabilities are considered separately, it becomes evident that these three types of learning disabilities can account for discrepancies in all of the academic domains included in federal and state definitions of LD. This resulting classification system links the findings from recent LD research, syndromes from neuropsychology, and the criteria that school districts are mandated to operationalize. The implications of the proposed classification system are discussed in relation to prevalence, diagnosis, and intervention.

Learning Disabilities Definitions and Criteria Used by State Education Departments

This article reports the results of a survey of the 51 state departments of education (including Washington, DC) regarding their definitions of learning disabilities, identification criteria, and operationalization procedures. A conceptual framework consisting of eight components was used in analyzing the definitions and identification criteria. Results show the continued effect of the 1977 federal definition and criteria while revealing variations in state definitions and criteria. For example, several state definitions now include the neurological component, and use of discrepancy criteria is increasing. To determine current trends, the data are compared with those from a similar survey published in 1990. Findings are discussed in terms of trends, prereferral interventions, and noncategorical identification.

Assessment and treatment of learning disabilities in Portugal.

This article is one in our Special International Perspectives on Learning Disabilities series. The author attempts to present the actual contextual picture of the learning disabilities (LD) field in Portugal, where the school failure rate in public schools is approximately 37% and 29% in primary and secondary systems, respectively. The need for a clear educational and legislative definition of LD is advanced, as well as some expectations for that national problem. A critical analysis of the assessment and treatment models is given, as well as some suggestions for and challenges to the role of schools and personnel training centers. Research priorities also are taken into account.

Investigating the academic achievement of adolescents with learning disabilities: A structural modeling approach.

Although academic performance is a primary component of the federal definition of learning disabilities (LD), there have been few investigations of factors that influence academic growth among adolescents with LD. The focus of the present study is parental attitudes, their effects on adolescents with and without LD and on the academic achievement of those students. The estimated model accounted for 72% and 74% of the variance in academic achievement for the groups of students with and without LD, respectively. The findings support the position that parental expectations and perceptions of parental expectations are instrumental in raising the academic expectations and the achievement of adolescents with and without LD. The comparison between the students with and without LD showed that the most important factors were the same for both groups, suggesting the model worked in the same way for the two populations.

Operationalizing a Definition of Learning Disabilities

Past, present, and future concerns regarding the definition of learning disabilities (LD) are documented. Research on efforts to clarify the LD label is discussed, with a focus on the questionable utility of the discrepancy model. Finally, an approach to operationalizing the NJCLD definition of LD is presented and applied.

Dysrationalia: a new specific learning disability.

The concept of selective deficit is the foundation of most conceptual definitions of learning disability. Such definitions have tended to implicate the construct of intelligence in the conceptualization of learning disability and have led to the use of IQ test scores to operationalize the notion of aptitude-achievement discrepancy. The learning disabilities field is only beginning to grapple with the implications of its reliance on the concept of psychometrically defined intelligence. For example, discrepancy-based definitions of learning disabilities guarantee that such disabilities will become more or less prevalent depending on the comprehensiveness of the set of skills assessed on IQ tests. Unlike the vernacular concept of intelligence--which is quite broad--psychometric operationalizations reflect only a thin slice of the mental domain that might be considered cognitive. Thus, it is possible that we have not exhausted the potential set of discrepancy-based disabilities. As a demonstration proof, a new discrepancy-based disability category is proposed and defended in this paper. The disability is one that may force more careful consideration of the role that intelligence plays in conceptual and operational definitions of learning disabilities.