The purpose of this study was to investigate the similarities and differences across state agencies serving adolescents and adults with learning disabilities in relation to their definitions and eligibility criteria for services. Significant differences were noted within and across agencies. Specific emphasis was given to investigating the 51 state departments of special education (SPE) and vocational rehabilitation (VR), including Washington, DC. A conceptual framework consisting of 21 components was used in analyzing the definitions and criteria. A follow-up phone interview was conducted with 14 state departments of SPE and VR to provide additional input on current trends that might not have been reflected in the empirical data. An outcome of those findings resulted in suggestions for definitions and eligibility criteria policy across state agencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanP.B.VogelS.A. (1993). Issues in the employment of adults with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 219–232.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42, U.S.C.A. (West, 1993).
4.
BerningerV.W.AbbotR.D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocol. InLyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 163–184). Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes.
5.
BillerE.F.WhiteW.J. (1989). Comparing special education and vocational rehabilitation in serving persons with specific learning disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 33(1), 4–17.
6.
BrackettT.McPhersonA. (1996). Learning disabilities diagnosis in postsecondary students: A comparison of discrepancy-based diagnostic models. In GreggN.HoyC.GayA.F. (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 68–84). New York: Guilford Press.
7.
BrinckerhoffL.ShawS.McGuireJ.M. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
8.
BrownD.S.GerberP.J.DowdyC. (1990). Pathways to employment for people with learning disabilities: A plan for actions. Paper presented at the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, Washington, DC.
9.
DowdyC.SmithJ.E.C. (1994). Servicing individuals with specific learning disabilities in the vocational rehabilitation system. InGerberP.J.ReiffH.B. (Eds.), Learning disabilities in adulthood: Persisting problems and emerging issues (pp. 171–178). Boston: Andover Medical.
10.
DowdyC.A.SmithT.NowellC. (1992). Learning disabilities and vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(7), 442–447.
11.
Education of handicapped children; Implementation of Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act (1997, August 23). 20 Fed. Reg. Part II. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.
12.
Education of the Handicapped Act of 1983, §§ 626, Public Law 98–199, 97 Stat. 1357 (1983).
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1990, PL 101–476.
14.
FrithU. (1996). Autism and asperger syndrome. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GreggN. (1995). Eligibility for learning disabilities rehabilitation services: Operationalizing the definition. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 86–95.
16.
GreggN.HoyC.GayA.F. (Eds.). (1996). Adults with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.
17.
GreggN.McKinleyC.JohnsonY. (1996). Learning disabilities policy and legal issues: A consumer and practitioner user-friendly guide. InGreggN.HoyC.GayA.F. (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 329–367). New York: Guilford Press.
18.
GreggN.StennettL.HoyC.CurtisR. (1997). Instructional subgroups of the adult population with learning disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
HanfordT.WhiteK. (1991, June). Reform by the numbers. The American School Board Journal, 178(6), 14–16.
20.
HoyC.GreggN.WisenbakerJ.BonhamS.KingM.MorelandC. (1996). Clinical model versus discrepancy model in determining eligibility for learning disabilities services at a rehabilitation setting. InGreggN.HoyC.GayA.F. (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities (pp. 55–67). New York: Guilford Press.
21.
LyonsR.E. (1994). Critical issues in the measurement of learning disabilities. InLyonsR. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 3–14). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
McGrewK.VanderwoodM.L.ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E. (1995). Why we can't say much about the status of students with disabilities during education reform (Synthesis Report 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
McNuttG. (1986). The status of learning disabilities in the states: Consensus or controversy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 12–16.
24.
MercerC.D.HughesC.MercerA.R. (1985). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 45–55.
25.
MercerC.D.JordanL.AllsoppD.H.MercerA.R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217–232.
26.
MercerC.D.King-SearsP.MercerA.R. (1990). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 141–152.
27.
MorganD.L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative Research Methods Series, 16. London: Sage.
28.
National Council on Disability. (1996, April). Improving the implements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Making schools work for all of America's children (Supplement). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
29.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Adults with learning disabilities: A call to action. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 172–175.
30.
Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1992, Public Law 102–569, §§ 106 506. Stat. 4344 (1992).
31.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93–112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).
32.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1990). Program assistance circular 90-7. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services.
33.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–475.
34.
RochE.E.FesslerM.A.ChurchR.P. (1997). The concomitance of learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders: A conceptual model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30.
35.
SiegelL.S. (1990). I.Q. is irrelevant in the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478.
36.
SzymanskiE.M. (1994). Transition: Life-span and life-space considerations for empowerment. Exceptional Children, 60(5), 402–410.
37.
WoodcockR.W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the Woodcock-Johnson. School Psychology Review, 13, 355–362.
