Arguments in support of the conceptual validity of learning disabilities are presented against the background of current definitional problems. The need to differentiate between classification and identification and the importance of a shared attribute definition are stressed. It is argued that a taxonomy of learning disabilities and related achievement problems will clarify and reduce ambiguities and inconsistencies in prevalence and expression of learning disabilities. It is also argued that current problems are related to the confusion of classification and identification, to inadequate operational measures, to an exclusive focus on individuals rather than contextual systems, and to the failure to recognize that classification serves many purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB., & YsseldykeJ. (1983). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going?Exceptional Children, 51, 242–246.
2.
BaileyK.D. (1973). Monothetic and polythetic typologies and their relation to conceptualization, measurement, and scaling. American Sociological Review, 38 (1), 18–33.
3.
ConeT.E., & WilsonL.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
4.
Farnham-DiggoryS. (1986). Commentary: Time, now, for a little serious complexity. In CeciS.J. (Ed.). Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
FornessS.R.SinclairE., & GuthrieD. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 107–114.
6.
KavaleK., & FornessS. (1985). The science of learning disabilities.San Diego: College-Hill Press.
7.
KeoghB.K. (1983). Classification, compliance, and confusion. Journal of Learning Disability, 16, 25.
8.
KeoghB.K. (1984). A shared attribute model of learning disabilities. In VaughnS. & BosC. (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 3–12). Boston: College-Hill/Little Brown.
9.
KeoghB.K., & MacMillanD.L. (1983). The logic of sample selection: Who represents what?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4 (3), 84–96.
10.
KeoghB.K.Major-KingleyS.Omori-GordonH., & ReidH.P. (1982). A system of marker variables for the field of learning disabilities.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
11.
KirkS.A., & ElkinsJ. (1975). Characteristics of children enrolled in the Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 630–637.
12.
LloydJ.W. (in press). Direct academic interventions in learning disabilities. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Wahlberg (Eds.),The handbook of special education: Research and practice. Oxford, Eng.: Pergamon Press.
13.
LyonG.R. (1985). Educational validation studies of learning disability subtypes. In RourkeB. (Ed.), Learning disabilities in children: Advances in subtype analysis.New York: Guilford Press.
14.
MacMillanD.L.MeyersC.E., & MorrisonG.M. (1980). System-identification of mildly mentally retarded children: Implications for interpreting and conducting research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85,108-115.
15.
McKinneyJ.D. (1984). The search for subtypes of specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 (4), 43-50.
16.
McKinneyJ.D. (in press). Research in conceptually and empirically derived subtypes of specific learning disabilities. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Wahlberg (Eds.),The handbook of special education: Research and practice. Oxford, Eng.: Pergamon Press.
17.
MehanH.MeihlsJ.L.HertweckA., & CrowdesM.S. (1981). Identifying handicapped students. In BacharachS.B. (Ed.), Organizational behavior in schools and school districts.New York: Praeger.
18.
MuraiH.M. (1982). Eligibility criteria for learning disabilities programs: Institutionalized discrimination. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15267.
19.
NormanC.A.Jr., & 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.
20.
PageE.B. (1980). Tests and decisions for the handicapped: A guide to evaluation under the new laws. The Journal of Special Education, 14,423-483.
21.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984-85). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-476.
22.
ReynoldsC.R.BerkR.A.BoodooG.M.CoxJ.GutkinT.B.MannL.PageE.B., & WillsonV.C. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Report of the Work Group on Measurement Issues in the Assessment of Learning Disabilities.
23.
RourkeB.P. (1976). Issues in the neuropsychological assessment of children with learning disabilities. Canadian Psychological Review, 17 (2), 89–102.
24.
SatzP., & MorrisR. (1981). Learning disability subtypes: A review. In PirozzoloF.J. & WittrockM.C. (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading.New York: Academic Press.
25.
SenfG. (1986). Learning disability research in sociological and scientific perspective. In J.K. Torgesen & B.Y. Wong (Eds.),Psychological education perspectives In learning disabilities.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26.
ShepardL.A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 79–91.
27.
ShepardL.A. (1983). The role of measurement in educational policy: Lessons from the identification of learning disabilities. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 2 (3), 4–8.
28.
ShepardL.A., & SmithM.L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6,115-127.
29.
TorgesenJ.K., & HouckD.G. (1980). Processing deficiencies in learning disabled children who perform poorly on the digit span test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 141-160.
30.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.ReganR., & PotterM. (1980). Technical adequacy of tests used by professionals in simulated decision making. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 202–209.
31.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.RicheyL., & GradenJ. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data?Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–43.
