Parameters of Learning Disabilities in Achievement,Linguistic,Neuropsychological,and Social/Behavioral Domains

Abstract

The techniques of meta-analysis were used to provide a quantitative synthesis of the findings from 1077 studies investigating the nature of learning disability. Across four domains (linguistic, achievement, neuropsychological, and social/behavior) that included 38 variables, studies were summarized to quantify the level of differentiation between comparisons of learning-disabled and normal groups. In general, about 75% of learning-disabled subjects could be differentiated clearly from normal subjects, but no particular area emerged as a primary source of learning disability. Across 34 variables, only about 40% of the variance in learning disability functioning was explained. The greatest group differentiation was in the linguistic domain, but it did not account for a significantly greater proportion of the variance. Across the remaining domain and variables, the learning-disabled subjects revealed about the same level of differentiation from normal subjects. It was concluded that learning disability is a complex and multivariate phenomenon which involves a number of component deficits that all make an important contribution. Consequently, a multiple-syndrome paradigm is necessary to provide a comprehensive description of learning disability.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Birch, H.G. , & Belmont, L. (1964). Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 852-861.

Campbell, D.T. , & Stanley, J.C. (1969). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .

Clements, S.D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children: Terminology and identification. (NINDS Monograph No. 3, U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1415). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Doehring, D.G. (1978). The tangled web of behavioral research on developmental dyslexia. In A. L. Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 123-135). New York: Oxford University Press.

Frostig, M. , & Horne, D. (1964). The Frostig program for the development of visual perception. Teacher's guide. Chicago: Follet.

Glass, G.V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research . In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education, 5, 351-379.

Glass, G.V. , McGaw, B. , & Smith, M.L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Hallahan, D.P. , Kauffman, J.M. , & Lloyd, J.W. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hays, W.L. (1981). Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston .

10.

Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics , 6, 107-128.

11.

Hedges, L.V. , & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

12.

Hunter, J.E. , Schmidt, F.L. , & Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE .

13.

Kavale, K.A. , & Forness, S.R. (1985). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego: College Hill Press.

14.

Kephart, N.C. (1960). The slow learner in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

15.

Kirk, S.A. , & Chalfant, J.C. (1984). Academic and developmental learning disabilities. Denver: Love.

16.

Kirk, S.A. , & Elkins, J. (1975). Characteristics of children enrolled in the Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 4, 6-21.

17.

Kirk, S.A. , & Kirk, W.D. (1971). Psycholinguistic learning disabilities: Diagnosis and re-mediation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

18.

Kraemer, H.C. , & Andrews, G. (1982). A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect size calculation. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 404-412.

19.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Lerner, J.W. (1985). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

21.

Meier, J. (1971). Prevalence and characteristics of learning disabilities found in second grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 4, 6-21.

22.

Myers, P.I. , & Hammill, D.D. (1982). Learning disabilities: Basic concepts, assessment practices, and instructional strategies. Austin, TX: ProEd.

23.

Myklebust, H.R. (1964). Learning disorders: Psychoneurological disturbances in childhood. Rehabilitation Literature, 25, 354-359.

24.

Norman, C.A. , & Zigmond, N. (1980). Characteristics of children labeled and served as learning disabled in school systems affiliated with Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 542-547.

25.

Orwin, R.G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis . Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157-159.

26.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 638-641.

27.

Weiderholt, J.L. (1974). Historical perspectives on the education of the learning disabled. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review of special education (pp. 103-152). Philadelphia: JSE Press.

28.

Wong, B. (1979). The role of theory in learning disabilities research. Part II: A selective review of current theories of learning and reading disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 6-21.