Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Learning Disability/Reading Disability Questionnaire constructed by the researchers was used to investigate and compare diagnostic and remedial populations and practices among 333 professionals in the following groups: 74 self-contained learning disabilities specialists, 141 resource learning disabilities specialists, and 118 reading resource specialists. Results are presented here regarding characteristics of remedial populations, prevalent use of instructional time, and usage of remedial methods and materials. The investigation demonstrated that both learning disabilities and reading professionals remediated language-disordered populations and displayed a similar profile regarding use of instructional time. Both professions employed reading methods rather than process methods. A paucity of study skill methods was found to be used by both professions. Implications for the fields are noted.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Artley

A. S.

Hardin

V. G.

A current dilemma: Reading disabilities versus learning disabilities. Reading Teacher, 1976, 28, 361–365.

Goodman

K. S.

Miscues: Windows on the reading process. In Goodman

K. S.

(Ed.), Miscue analysis: Applications to reading instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1973.

Hammill

D. D.

Larsen

S. C.

The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: A reaffirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 1978, 44, 402–414.

Hartman

N. C.

Hartman

R. K.

Perceptual handicap or reading disability?

Reading Teacher, 1976, 26, 684–695.

Jakupcak

M. J.

Areas of congruence in remedial reading and learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 155–157.

Kline

L. W.

Follow the yellow brick road or lost in the forest of professional educational argument. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 167–177.

Larsen

S. C.

The learning disabilities specialist: Role and responsibilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 498–508.

Larsen

S. C.

Parker

R. M.

Hammill

D. D.

Effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: A response to Kavale. Exceptional Children, 1982, 49, 60–65.

Lerner

J. W.

Remedial reading and learning disabilities: Are they the same or different?

Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 119–131.

10.

List

Much ado about something: Lerner's logic. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 139–143.

11.

McNutt

Perspectives on reading, language arts, and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1980, 3, 3–9.

12.

Newcomer

Learning disabilities: an educator's perspective. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 145–149.

13.

Nienstad

Talking with LD teachers. Reading Teacher, 1975, 28, 662–665.

14.

Sartain

H. W.

Instruction of disabled learners: A reading perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 489–497.

15.

Sawyer

W. E.

Wilson

B. A.

Role clarification for remedial reading and learning disabilities teachers. Reading Teacher, 1979, 33, 162–166.

16.

Senf

G. M.

Now whom would you hire to teach a failing reader?

Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 151–154.

17.

Smith

Reading without nonsense. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1979.

18.

Wallace

Interdisciplinary efforts in learning disabilities: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Special Education, 1976, 9, 520–525.

19.

Wiederholt

S. L.

Hammill

D. D.

Use of the Frostig-Horne visual perception program in the urban school. Psychology in the Schools, 1971, 8, 268–274.

The Debate over Learning Disability vs. Reading Disability: A Survey of Practitioners' Populations and Remedial Methods

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References