This article reports the results of a survey of the 51 state departments of education (including Washington, DC) regarding their definitions of learning disabilities, identification criteria, and operationalization procedures. A conceptual framework consisting of eight components was used in analyzing the definitions and identification criteria. Results show the continued effect of the 1977 federal definition and criteria while revealing variations in state definitions and criteria. For example, several state definitions now include the neurological component, and use of discrepancy criteria is increasing. To determine current trends, the data are compared with those from a similar survey published in 1990. Findings are discussed in terms of trends, prereferral interventions, and noncategorical identification.
BerkR.A. (1982). Effectiveness of discrepancy score methods for screening children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 1 (2), 11–24.
3.
BerkR.A. (1984). An evaluation of procedures for computing an ability-achievement discrepancy score. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 262–266.
4.
CarterJ.SugaiG. (1989). Survey on prereferral practices: Responses from state departments of education. Exceptional Children, 55, 298–302.
5.
ChalfantJ.C. (1985). Identifying learning disabled students: A summary of the National Task Force report. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1 (1), 9–20.
6.
ConeT.E.WilsonL.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
7.
Council for Learning Disabilities Board of Trustees. (1986). Use of discrepancy formulas in the identification of learning disabled individuals. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 245.
8.
FornessS.R.SinclairE.GuthrieD. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 107–114.
9.
FrankenbergerW.HarperJ. (1987). States' criteria and procedures for identifying learning disabled children: A comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 guidelines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 118–121.
10.
GicklingE.E.ThompsonV.P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.
11.
HammillD.D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74–84.
12.
HammillD.D. (1993). A timely definition of learning disabilities. Family and Community Health, 16 (3), 1–8.
13.
HyndG.W.MarshallR.GonzalezJ. (1991). Learning disabilities and presumed central nervous system dysfunction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 283–296.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1987). The far side of heterogeneity: A critical analysis of empirical subtyping research in learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 374–382.
16.
Learning Disabilities Association. (1995). LDA demands specific learning disabilities remain in IDEA. LDA Newsbriefs, 30 (5), 1.
17.
LyonG.R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(Suppl. 1), 120–126.
18.
MatherN.RobertsR. (1994). Learning disabilities: A field in danger of extinction?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 49–58.
19.
McLoughlinJ.A.LewisR.B. (1994). Assessing special students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
20.
MercerC.D. (1977). Students with learning disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
21.
MercerC.D.ForgnoneC.WolkingW.D. (1976). Definitions of learning disabilities used in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 376–386.
22.
MercerC.D.HughesC.MercerA.R. (1985). Learning disabilities definitions used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 45–55.
23.
MercerC.D.King-SearsP.MercerA.R. (1990). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 141–152.
24.
ReynoldsC.R. (1985). Measuring the aptitude-achievement discrepancy in learning disability diagnosis. Remedial and Special Education, 5 (3), 19–23.
25.
ReynoldsC.R. (1992). Two key concepts in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and the habilitation of learning. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 2–12.
26.
RossR.P. (1995). Impact on psychologists of state guidelines for evaluating underachievement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 43–56.
SchuerholzL.J.HarrisE.L.BaumgardnerT.L.ReissA.L.FreundL.S.ChurchR.P.MohrJ.DencklaM.B. (1995). An analysis of two discrepancy-based models and a processing-deficit approach in identifying learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 18–29.
29.
ShawS.F.CullenJ.P.McGuireJ.M.BrinckerhoffL.C. (1995). Operationalizing a definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 586–597.
30.
ShephardL. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 69–74.
31.
SiegelL.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486.
32.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
33.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, 65082–65085.
