Learning Disability Quarterly

The techniques of meta-analysis were used to arrive at a quantitative synthesis of the results of 94 studies of the validity of Wechsler regroupings for differential diagnosis of learning disabilities. The primary finding indicated that no recategorization, profile, factor cluster, or pattern showed a significant difference between learning disabled and normal samples. The learning disabled group revealed about average performance and demonstrated less variability than the normal comparison group. Although differences emerged within the learning disabled group, no regrouping scheme was found exhibiting a uniqueness for learning disabilities that might be useful in differential diagnosis. Based on these results it was concluded that profile and scatter analysis is not defensible and that use of the Wechsler Scales should focus only on global intelligence assessment.

Based on results from research on learning disabled children's spelling, it is argued that spelling errors produced by carefully selected LD elementary-school students cannot be interpreted as aberrant or as deviating from errors expected of younger, normally achieving children. The data are interpreted to support a cognitive-developmental model of spelling acquisition in LD and normally achieving children. Errors are shown to represent limited information and/or ability to formulate strategies for how to apply information in order to solve spelling problems. Recommended solutions include the need for supplementary instruction in general problem-solving skills as they relate to acquisition of basic academic skills. Moreover, researchers are urged to consider the potential of programmatic research on LD students' basic-skills acquisition as a model of cognitive processing differences.

An alternating-treatments design was used to investigate the relative effects of illustrations on the oral reading in context and comprehension accuracy of five elementary-school learning disabled students. Social comparison data were used to verify oral reading deficiencies. Results showed no apparent relationship between the presence or absence of illustrations and changes in oral reading rates or response accuracy of comprehension questions. Results are discussed in relation to the purported benefits of illustrations. Finally, implications for instruction and suggestions for future investigations are discussed.

Two experiments were conducted to investigate LD children's ability to predict and evaluate their own oral decoding performance. In the first experiment, LD and non-LD children predicted whether they could correctly pronounce words which varied in pronounceability, as defined by orthographic structure. Results indicated that non-LD children's predictions were more sensitive to orthographic variations than were those of the LD subjects. In a second experiment subjects were required to predict performance of nonsense words from a standardized reading test, whose items were of graduated difficulty. A “range” was constructed for each child spanning the easiest item on which a child made an error to the most difficult item to which he/she responded correctly. Groups of LD and normal children were established, matched on number of words in a “range” and accuracy within the range. Results tentatively suggested that when words were individualized in this manner, LD children were as competent as non-LD children in predicting and evaluating their own performance.

The nature of learning disabilities in adulthood is examined in relation to theoretical models and research related to adult development. This approach is offered as an alternative to the practice of conceptualizing learning disabilities as primarily reflecting the persistence of childhood disorders into adulthood. The basic assumptions of a life span developmental approach are presented, and specific mediating variables influencing adaptation to significant life events are discussed. Recent research on disabled adults is reviewed in terms of its relevance to adult development with an emphasis on a new conceptualization of learning disabilities in adults. Implications are drawn for future research and intervention directions.