Article1989

Why Siegel's Arguments Are Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities

9 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Learning Disabilities

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology Down syndrome and intellectual disability research Educational and Psychological Assessments

Abstract

Les auteurs se situent en faveur de la these de SIEGEL selon laquelle le Q.I. est inadequat pour la definition des handicaps d'apprentissage. Neanmoins, ils montrent que les arguments employes par SIEGEL ne sont pas pertinents et que d'autres arguments s'imposent

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

References

1975Assessment of Children's Intelligence 1988Learning Disabilities Research 1976Definitions of Learning Disabilities Used in the United States 1972Some Issues Facing the Field of Learning Disability 1987Theoretical Issues Surrounding Severe Discrepancy 1987States' Criteria and Procedures for Identifying Learning Disabled Children: A Comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 Guidelines

Cited by

1993Traditional IQ Is Irrelevant to Learning Disabilities—Intelligence Is Not 1993How Many Learning Disabilities Are There? A Commentary on Stanovich's “Dysrationalia 1990A Non-Formula Discrepancy Model to Identify Learning Disabilities 2005Discrepancy models and the meaning of learning disability

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.