Impact of Different Definitions of Learning Disabilities on the Number of Students Identified

Abstract

Despite many proposed definitions of learning disabilities and efforts to operationalize these definitions, there continues to be little agreement on either the definition of learning disabilities or the criteria that should be used to identify learning-disabled (LD) students. The number of students identified by each of 14 operational definitions that were based on either ability-achievement discrepancies, low achievement, or scatter were examined. The relationship between each definition and actual school classification was also examined. Subjects were 48 school-identified LD children and 96 non-LD children; all had previously been administered a battery of psychoeducational tests. Classification of each child as LD or non-LD according to each of 14 operational definitions indicated that different definitions identify significantly different numbers of students. The three categories of definitions did not discriminate LD and non-LD children consistently. Within the limitations of the present study, the prognosis is for continued confusion in the field of learning disabilities. Implications and recommendations for the educational system are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman, H. Diagnostic classification of LD: Research and ethical perspectives as related to practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 5-15.

Algozzine, B. , Forgnone, C. , Mercer, C. D. , & Trifiletti, J. J. Toward defining discrepancies for specific learning disabilities: An analysis and alternatives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 25-31.

Cone, T. E. , & Wilson, L. R. Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 359-371.

Divoky, D. Education's latest victim: The “LD” kid. Learning, 1974, 3, 20-25.

Epps, S. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , & Algozzine, B. An analysis of the conceptual framework underlying definitions of learning disabilities (Research Report No. 98). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1983.

Games, P. An improved t table for simultaneous control on g contrasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1977, 72, 531-534.

Harnmill, D. D. , Leigh, J. E. , McNutt, G. , & Larsen, S. C. A new definition of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 336-342.

Hays, W. L. Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1973.

Hobbs, N. The futures of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.

10.

Jenkins, J. R. , & Pany, D.

Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?

Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 448-453.

11.

Lahey, B. B. , Vosk, B. N. , & Habif, V. L. Behavioral assessment of learning disabled children: A rationale and strategy. Behavioral Assessment, 1981, 3, 3-14.

12.

Lerner, J. W. Children with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.

13.

Lidz, C. S. Improving assessment of school children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

14.

Mercer, C. D. , Forgnone, C. , & Wolking, W. D.

Definitions of learning disabilities used in the United

States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 376-386.

15.

Reynolds, M. C. , & Wang, M. C. Restructuring “special” school programs: A position paper. Policy Studies Review, 1983, 2, 189-212.

16.

Salvia, J. , & Ysseldyke, J. E. Assessment in special and remedial education (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.

17.

Thurlow, M. L. , Ysseldyke, J. E. Current assessment and decision-making practices in model programs for the learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 15-24.

18.

Tucker, J. A. Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14, 93-105.

19.

Tucker, J. , Stevens, L. J. , & Ysseldyke, J. E. Learning disabilities. The experts speak out (Research Report No. 77). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.

20.

U.S. Department of Education . Second annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94-142. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Special Education, 1980.

21.

U. S. Office of Education . Education of handicapped children: Assistance to states: Proposed rulemaking. Federal Register, 1976, 41, 52404-52407.

22.

U. S. Office of Education . Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 1977, 42, 65082-65085.

23.

Vaughan, R. W. , & Hodges, L. A statistical survey into a definition of learning disabilities: A search for acceptance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 658-664.

24.

Woodcock, R. W. Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Hingham, Mass.: Teaching Resources, 1978.

25.

Woodcock, R. W. , & Johnson, M. B. Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Boston: Teaching Resources, 1977.

26.

Ysseldyke, J. E. , Algozzine, B. , & Epps, S. A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, in press.

27.

Ysseldyke, J. E. , Algozzine, B. , Regan, R. , & Potter, M. Technical adequacy of tests used by professionals in simulated decision making. Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 17, 202-209.