The Solomon effect in learning disabilities diagnosis: Can we learn from history?

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act; IDEIA, 2004) has been reauthorized, and new parameters for defining learning disabilities (LD) have been established that provide more flexibility for corresponding state and local regulations. The field now has a unique opportunity to shape the practice of LD diagnosis and should consider important conceptual, theoretical, empirical, economic, legal, and practical issues related to LD diagnosis. This article highlights five key recommendations for the diagnostic definition of learning disabilities: (1) the definition needs to be unambiguous; (2) it must be universally accepted across professions, researchers, and governmental entities; (3) it must incorporate clearly defined subtypes of learning disabilities; (4) it must be empirically supported; and (5) it must point to valid, reliable, and cost–effective procedures for the identification of children with and without learning disabilities. Consideration of these points may help the field to avoid repeating past mistakes and returning to the folly of poor LD diagnostic practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.