Definition of terms and the selection criteria for operationalizing the standard of disability are critical to accessing accommodations. The purpose of this article was to examine the research surrounding definitions and selection criteria for learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder at the postsecondary level. Implications from and for the courts follow a critical analysis of the professional literature. The need for researchers to utilize theory-based models to investigate the multivariate relationships between and within constructs underlying current definitions and eligibility criteria is also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Council on Education. (1996). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Where are they enrolled?Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition . Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (West, 1993).
4.
Association on Higher Education and Disability. ( 1997). Guidelines for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults. Columbus, OH: Author.
5.
Bacon, L.D. (1997, June). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Some background. Paper presented at the meeting of the Advanced Research Techniques Forum, Monterey, CA .
6.
Baldwin, B. (1989). A primer in the use and interpretation of structural equation models. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 100-112.
7.
Barkley, R.A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford.
8.
Barkley, R.A. (1994a). The assessment of attention in children. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 69-102). Baltimore: Brookes.
9.
Barkley, R.A. (1994b). Delayed responding and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Toward a unified theory. In D. K. Routh (Ed.), Disruptive behavior disorders in children: Essays in honor of Herbert Quay (pp. 11-57). New York: Plenum.
10.
Barkley, R.A. (1996). Critical issues in research and attention. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory and executive function (pp. 45-56). Baltimore: Brookes .
11.
Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 1-131 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
12.
Berninger, V.W. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition: A developmental neuropsychological perspective. New York: Westview Press.
13.
Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R.D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocals. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 163-183). Baltimore: Brookes .
14.
Berninger, V., Hart, T., Abbott, R., & Karovsky, P. (1992), Diagnosing reading and writing disabilities with and without IQ: A flexible, developmental approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 103-118.
15.
Brackett, J., & McPhearson, A. (1996). Learning disabilities diagnosis in postsecondary students: A comparison of discrepancy-based diagnostic models . In N. Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 68-84). New York: Guilford Press.
16.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
17.
Crowley, S.L., & Fan, X. (1997). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 508-531.
18.
Fassinger, R.E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 425-436.
19.
Fletcher, J.M., & Foorman, B.R. (1994). Issues in definition and measurement of learning disabilities: The need for early intervention. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 185-200). Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
Fletcher, J.M., & Morris, R.D. (1986). Classification of disabled learners: Beyond exclusionary definitions. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 55-80). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
21.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, B.A., & Shaywitz, S. (1994). Attention as a process and as disorder. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 103-116). Baltimore: Brookes.
22.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebin, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1994). The measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 29-58). Baltimore: Brookes.
23.
Gregg, N. (1994). Eligibility for learning disabilities rehabilitation services: Operationalizing the definition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 86-95.
24.
Gregg, N., Heggoy, S., Stapleton, M., Jack-son, R., & Morris, R. (1994). The Georgia model of eligibility for postsecondary students. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisplinary Journal , 7, 29-36.
25.
Gregg, N., McKinley, C., & Johnson, Y. (1996). Learning disabilities policy and legal issues: A consumer and practitioner user-friendly guide. In N. Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 329-367). New York: Guilford Press.
26.
Gregg, N., Scott, S., McPeek, D., & Ferri, B. (1997). Definitions and eligibility criteria applied to the adolescent and adults population with learning disabilities across agencies . (Manuscript submitted for publication).
27.
Guckenberger v. Trustee of Boston University, Case No. 96-11426-PBSD. Mass. (Decided August 15, 1997).
28.
Heyward, S. (1992). Access to education for the disabled: A guide to compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
29.
Hoy, C. Gregg, N., Wisenbaker, J., Bonham, S., King, M. & Moreland , C. (1996). Clinical model versus discrepancy model in determining eligibility for learning disabilities services at a rehabilitation setting. In N. Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 55-67). New York: Guilford Press.
30.
Hoyle, R.H., & Smith, G.T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypothesis as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429-440.
31.
Idol-Maestas, Z.,. & Rock, S. (1981). Recent research literature on the mildly handicapped . Teacher Education and Special Education, 4, 3-7.
32.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Public Law101-476, 104Stat.1142 (1990).
33.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1985). LISREL. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 6., pp. 87-90). New York: Wiley.
34.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego: College-Hill.
35.
Kincaid, J. (1997). When determining... Disability Compliance forHigher Education, 3 (7), 4.
36.
Lidz, C.S. (1997). Dynamic assessment approaches. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Gen-shaft , & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 281-296). New York: Guilford Press.
37.
Luria, A.R. (1973). The working brain. New York : Basic Books.
38.
Lyon, G.R. (1985a). Educational validation studies of learning disability subtypes. In B. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning disability. Essentials of subtype analysis (pp. 228-256). New York: Guilford Press.
39.
Lyon, G.R. (1985b). Identification and re-mediation of learning disability subtypes: Preliminary findings. Learning DisabilitiesFocus , 1, 21-35.
40.
MacMann, G.M., Barnett, D.W., Lombard, T.J., Belton-Kocher, E., & Sharpe, M.N. (1989). On the actuarial classification of children: Fundamental studies of classification agreement. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 127-149.
41.
McGuire, J., Madaus, J.W., Litt, A.V., & Ramirez, M.O. (1996). An investigation of documentation submitted by university students to verify their learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 297-304.
42.
Moore, A.D. (1995). Structural equation modeling in special education research. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 178-183.
43.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, (1997). Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for on-going assessment [Position paper].
44.
Ortiz, A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 321-332.
45.
Price et al. v. TheNational Board of Medical Examiners, 966, F. Supp. 419 (S.D.W.Va. 1997).
46.
Price, L., & Shaw, S. (1997). The AHEAD code of ethics: Principle three. Alert, 21, 1, 4.
47.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq ( 1992).
48.
Rothstein, L. (1997). Higher education and disabilities: Trends and developments. StetsonLaw Review, 27, 119-139.
49.
Scott, S., Gregg, N., & Davis, M. (in press). Accommodating college students with ADHD: The documentation dilemma. Latest Developments.
50.
Shaw, S., Cullen, J.P., McGuire, J.M., & Brinckerhoff, L.C. (1995). Operationalizing a definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 28, 586-597.
51.
Shaywitz, B.A., & Shaywitz, S. (1994). Measuring and analyzing change. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement (pp. 59-68). Baltimore: Brookes.
52.
Siegel, L. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-486.
53.
Siegel, L. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618-629.
54.
Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray?Reading Research Quarterly , 26, 1-29.
55.
State University of New York, 4 NDLR Sec 432 (Complaint No. 02-93-2088) (OCR Region II 1993).
56.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
57.
Stone, D. (1996). The impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act on legal education and academic modifications for disabled law students: An empirical study. Kansas Law Review, 44, 567-600.
58.
Swanson, H.L., Plank, D. & Still, J. (1988). The characteristics of prominent articles with "special education" in the title. Remedial and Special Education ,9(5), 41-49.
59.
Tucker, B.P. (1996). Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on Section 504 to colleges and universities: An overview and discussion of special issues relating to students. Journal of College and University Law, 23, 1-41.
60.
van der Meere, J., van Baal, M., & Sergeant, J. (1989). The additive factor method: A differential diagnostic tool in hyperactivity and learning disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 409-422.
61.
Vogel, S., Leonard, F., Scales, W., Hayeslip, P., Hermansen, J., & Donnells, L. (1998). The national learning disabilities postsecondary databank: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 234-247.
62.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading related phonological abilities: New evidence of bidirectionality causability from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology , 30, 73-87.
63.
When determining disability. (1997, August). Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 3(1), 4.
64.
Willson, V.L. & Rupley, W.H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 45-63.
