In this article, we review problems in identification of learning disabilities and consider proposed alternatives to present procedures. We argue that no proposed alternative meets all the necessary criteria for identification of learning disabilities, and that radically altering or eliminating current conceptualizations of learning disabilities may amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” We conclude that the major problems of identification of learning disabilities — including overidentification, variability, and specificity — can be eliminated by increasing specificity and consistency of state criteria and strict adherence to identification criteria on the local implementation level. Finally, we argue that scarce special education funds should not be employed to address the problems of general education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
2.
AckermanP.T.HollowayC.A.YoungdahlP.L.DykmanR.A. (2001). The double-deficit of reading disability does not fit all. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 152–160.
AlgozzineR.KorinekL. (1985). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going?Exceptional Children, 51, 388–394.
5.
AlgozzineR.YsseldykeJ.E. (1987). In defense of different numbers. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 53–56.
6.
AlgozzineR.YsseldykeJ.E.McGueM. (1995). Differentiating low-achieving students: Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 140–144.
7.
AlleyG.R.DeshlerD.D.WarnerM.M. (1979). Identification of learning disabled adolescents: A Bayesian approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 86–83.
8.
AllorJ.H. (2002). The relationships of phonemic awareness and rapid naming to reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 47–57.
9.
Al-OtaibaS.D. (2000). Children who do not respond to early literacy intervention: A longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
10.
Al-OtaibaS.D.FuchsD.(in press). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education.
11.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Text Revision. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
AndersonP.L.Meier-HeddeR. (2001). Early case reports of dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 9–21.
13.
BaroodyA.J.GinsburgH.P. (1991). A cognitive approach to assessing the mathematical difficulties of children labeled “learning disabled.” In SwansonH.L. (Ed.), Handbook on the assessment of learning disabilities: Theory, research and practice (pp. 177–228). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
BeitchmanJ.H.CantwellD.P.FornessS.R.KavaleK.A.KauffmanJ.M. (1998). Practice parameters for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with leanguage and learning disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37 (Supplement), 46S–62S
16.
BerlinR. (1887). Line besondre art der wortblindheit: Dyslexia ([A special type of wordblindness: Dyslexia]). Wiesbaden: Bergmann.
17.
BerningerV.W.AbbottR.D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude — achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In LyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 163–183). Baltimore: Brookes.
18.
ChristensenC.A. (1999). Learning disability: Issues of representation, power, and the medicalization of school failure. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological cognitive, contextual (pp. 227–249). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19.
ColesG.S. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at learning disabilities. New York: Pantheon.
20.
ConeT.E.WilsonL.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
21.
CooneyJ.B.SwansonH.L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: An overview. In SwansonH.L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Supplement 2, pp. 1–40). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
22.
CoutinhoM. (1995). Who will be learning disabled after the reauthorization of IDEA? Two very distinct perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 664–668.
23.
DawesR.M.FaustD.MeehlP.E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.
24.
DejerineJ. (1892). Contribution a l'etude anatomo-pathologique et clinique des differentes varietes de cecite verbale. Memoriale Societe Biologique, Fev. 27, 61–63.
25.
FinlanT.G. (1992). Do state methods of quantifying a severe discrepancy result in fewer students with learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 129–135.
26.
FleischnerJ.E. (1994). Diagnosis and assessment of mathematics learning disabilities. In LyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 441–458). Baltimore: Brookes.
27.
FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.RourkeB.P.ShaywitzS.E. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555–561, 573.
28.
FletcherJ.M.FoormanB.R. (1994). Issues in definition and measurement of learning disabilities: The need for early intervention. In LyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 185–200). Baltimore: Brookes.
29.
FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.ShaywitzS.E.LyonG.R.FoormanB. R.StuebingK.K.ShaywitzB.A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
30.
FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShankweilerD.P.KatzL.LibermanI.Y.StuebingK.K.FrancisD.J.FowlerA.E.ShaywitzB.A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.
31.
FrankenbergerW.FronzaglioK. (1991). A review of states' criteria and procedures for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 495–500.
32.
FuchsD.FuchsL.S.MathesP.G.LipseyM.W. (2000). Reading differences between low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. In GerstenR.SchillerE.P.VaughnS. (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 81–105). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–220.
34.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.SpeeceD.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.
35.
GalaburdaA. (1991). Anatomy of dyslexia: Argument against phrenology. In DuaneD.D.GrayD.B. (Eds.), The reading brain (pp. 119–131). Pankton, MD: York Press.
36.
GallagherJ.J. (1966). Children with developmental imbalances: A psychoeducational definition. In CruickshankW. (Ed.), The teacher of brain-injured children (pp. 20–34). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
37.
GottliebJ.AlterM.GottliebB.W.WishnerJ. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27, 453–465.
38.
GreshamF. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education LD Summit, Washington, DC.
39.
HallahanD.P.CottoneE.A. (1997). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 11, pp. 27–68). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
HallahanD.P.KellerC.E.BallD.W. (1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 8–14.
42.
HaringK.A.LovettD.L.HaneyK.F.AlgozzineB.SmithD.D.ClarkeJ. (1992). Labeling preschoolers as learning disabled: A cautionary position. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 151–173.
43.
HinshelwoodJ. (1896). A case of dyslexia: A peculiar form of word-blindness. Lancet, 2, 1451–1454.
44.
HorowitzS.H.LichtensteinB.RollerC. (2002, February). An intervention-oriented, multi-tiered approach for identifying and serving students with learning disabilities. Straw man prepared for the Learning Disabilities Roundtable “Finding Common Ground” Initiative, Washington, DC.
45.
HornW.F.O'DonnellJ.P. (1985). Early identification of learning disabilities: A comparison of two methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1106–1108.
46.
HyndG.W.ClintonA.B.HiemenzJ.R. (1999). The neuropsychological basis of learning disabilities. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 60–82). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
47.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1984). A meta-analysis assessing the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136–156.
48.
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.
49.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245–273.
51.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256.
52.
KavaleK.A.FornessS.R.LorsbachT.C. (1991). Definition for definitions of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 257–266.
53.
KavaleK.A.FuchsD.ScruggsT.E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 70–77.
54.
KavaleK.A.MattsonP.D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of perceptual motor training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165–173.
55.
KavaleK.A.NyeC. (1985-1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. Journal of Special Education, 19, 443–458.
56.
KavaleK.A.NyeC. (1991). The structure of learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2(3), 141–156.
57.
KavaleK.A.ReeseJ.H. (1991). Teacher beliefs and perceptions about learning disabilities: A survey of Iowa's practitioners. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 141–160.
58.
KeoghB.K. (1986). Future of the LD field: Research and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 455–460.
59.
KeoghB.K. (1994). A matrix of decision points in the measurement of learning disabilities. In LyonG.R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 15–26). Baltimore: Brookes.
60.
KeoghB.BeckerL.D. (1973). Early detection of learning problems: Questions, cautions, and guidelines. Exceptional Children, 40, 5–11.
61.
KirkS.A. (1971). Psycholinguistic learning disabilities: Diagnosis and remediation. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
62.
KoscL. (1981). Neuropsychological implications of diagnosis and treatment of mathematical learning disabilities. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 1, 19–30.
63.
KussmaulA. (1877). Disturbances of speech. In von ZiemssenH. (Ed.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medicine (trans. J. McCreery). New York: William Wood.
64.
LarsenS.C.HammillD.D. (1975). The relationship of selected visual perceptual abilities to school learning. Journal of Special Education, 9, 281–291.
65.
LesterG.KelmanM. (1997). State disparities in the diagnosis and placement of pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 599–607.
66.
LyonG.R. (1985). Identification and remediation of learning disability subtypes: Preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 21–35.
LyonG.R. (2001, March). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Statement to Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/107th/edr/account3801/lyon.htm
69.
LyonG.R.FletcherJ.M.ShaywitzS.E.ShaywitzB.A.TorgesenJ.K.WoodF.B.SchulteA.OlsonR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC.E.Jr.RotherhamA.J.HokansonC.R.Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
70.
MacMillanD.L.GreshamF.M.BocianK.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314–326.
71.
MacMillanD.L.GreshamF.M.SipersteinG.N.BocianK.M. (1996). The labyrinth of I.D.E.A.: School decisions on referred students with subaverage general intelligence. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 161–174.
72.
MacMillanD.L.SipersteinG.N. (2001, August). Learning disabilities as operationally defined in schools. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education LD Summit, Washington, DC.
73.
MacMillanD.L.SipersteinG.N.GreshamF.M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356–371.
74.
MastropieriM.A. (1987). Statistical and psychometric issues surrounding severe discrepancy: A discussion. Learning Disabilities Research, 30, 29–31.
75.
MastropieriM.A. (1988). Learning disabilities in early childhood. In KavaleK.A. (Ed.), Learning disabilities: State of the art and practice (pp. 161–179). Boston: College-Hill/Little Brown.
76.
MastropieriM.A. (2001, August). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education LD Summit, Washington, DC.
77.
MastropieriM.A.ScruggsT.E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 197–213.
78.
McCarthyJ.M. (1971). Learning disabilities: Where have we been: Where are we going? In HammillD.BartelN. (Eds.), Educational perspectives in learning disabilties (pp. 10–19). New York: Wiley.
79.
McKinneyJ.D.ShortE.J.FeagansL. (1985). Academic consequences of perceptual-linguistic subtypes of learning disabled children. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 6–17.
80.
McLeskeyJ.WaldronN.L. (1990). The identification and characteristics of students with learning disabilities in Indiana. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 72–78.
81.
MeehlP. (1973). Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
82.
MercerC.D.ForgnoneC.WolkingW.D. (1976). Definitions of learning disabilities used in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 376–386.
83.
MercerC.D.JordanL.AllsoppD.H.MercerA.R. (1996). Learning disability definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217–232.
84.
NaglieriJ. (2001). Do ability and reading achievement correlate?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 304–306.
OlsonR.K. (1999). Genes, environment, and reading disabilities. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 3–21). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
87.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–476.
88.
RourkeB. (1989). Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford Press.
89.
RourkeB. (1993). Arithmetic disabilities, specific and otherwise: A neuropsychological perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 214–226.
90.
RumseyJ.M. (1996). Neuroimaging in developmental dyslexia: A review and conceptualization. In LyonG.R.RumseyJ.M. (Eds.), Neuroimaging: A window to the neurological foundations of learning and behavior in children (pp. 57–78). Baltimore: Brookes.
91.
SchragJ. (2000). Discrepancy approaches for identifying learning disabilities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
92.
ScruggsT.E. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy: A discussion. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 21–23.
93.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1986). Academic characteristics of behaviorally disordered and learning disabled children. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 184–190.
94.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1988). Legitimizing the field of learning disabilities: Does research orientation matter?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 219–222.
95.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (1994-1995). Assessing students with learning disabilities: Current issues and future directions. Diagnostique, 20, 17–31.
96.
ShaywitzS.E.EscobarM.D.ShaywitzB.A.FletcherJ.M.MakachR. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145–150.
97.
ShaywitzB.A.FletcherJ.M.HolahanJ. M.ShaywitzS.E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 639–648.
98.
ShepardL.A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79–91.
99.
SiegelL.S. (1989). I.Q. is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618–629.
100.
SiegelL. (1999). Learning disabilities: The roads we have traveled and the path to the future. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 159–175). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
101.
SiegelL.S.RyanE.B. (1988). Development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980.
102.
SkrticT.M. (1999). Learning disabilities as organizational pathologies. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 193–226). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
103.
SleeterC.E. (1995). Radical structuralist perspectives on the creation and use of learning disabilities. In SkrticT. (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 153–165). New York: Teachers College Press.
104.
Spear-SwerlingL. (1999). Can we get there from here: Learning disabilities and future education policy. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 250–276). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
105.
SpeeceD.L.CaseL.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
106.
StanovichK.E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological core-variable difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590–604.
107.
StanovichK.E. (1991). Conceptual and empirical problems with discrepancy definitions of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 269–283.
108.
SternbergR.J. (1999). Epilogue: Toward emerging consensus about learning disabilities. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 277–282). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
109.
StrangJ.D.RourkeB.P. (1983). Concept-formation/nonverbal reasoning abilities of children who exhibit specific academic problems with arithmetic. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 28–37.
110.
SwansonH.L. (1993a). Working memory in learning disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 87–114.
111.
SwansonH.L. (1993b). Theoretical, technical, and practical aspects of the S-cognitive processing test: The development of a dynamic assessment measure. In ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 10, Part A, pp. 135–208). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
112.
TorgesenJ.K. (1999). Phonologically based reading disabilities: Toward a coherent theory of one kind of learning disability. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 106–135). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
113.
TorgesenJ.K.WagnerR.K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 220–232.
114.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
115.
VellutoniF.R.ScanlonD.M.SipayE.R.SmallS.ChenR.PrattA.DenklaM.B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
116.
VellutinoF.R.ScanlonD.M.LyonG.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ — discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
117.
WagnerR.K.GaronT. (1999). Learning disabilities in perspective. In SternbergR.J.Spear-SwerlingL. (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 83–105). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
118.
WagnerR.K.TorgesenJ.K.RashotteC.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
119.
WissinkJ.F.KassC.E.FerrellW.R. (1975). A Bayesian approach to the identificaiton of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 58–66.
120.
WolfM.BowersP.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
121.
WongB.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. New York: Academic Press.
122.
WoodF.FlowersL.BuchsbaumM.TallalP. (1991). Investigation of abnormal left temporal functioning in dyslexia through CBF, auditory evoked potentials, and positron emission tomography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 379–393.
123.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.RicheyL.GradenJ.P. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services. Why bother with the data?Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–44.
124.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.R.McGueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
125.
ZigmondN. (1993). Learning disabilities from an educational perspective. In LyonG.R.GrayD.B.KavanaghJ.R.KrasnegorN.A. (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 251–272). Baltimore: Brookes.
