CLASSIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES: AN EVIDENCE- BASED EVALUATION

Unknown author

131 citations0/0 files storedRoutledge eBooks

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 Reading and Literacy Development Behavioral and Psychological Studies

Abstract

Jack M. Fletcher, University of Texas; G. Reid Lyon, National Institutes of Health; Marcia Barnes, University of Toronto; Karla K. Stuebing, University of Texas; David J. Francis, University of Houston; Richard K. Olson, University of Colorado; Sally E. Shaywitz, Bennett A. Shaywitz, Yale University The purpose of this paper is to review research on the classification of learning disabilities (LD). We begin by briefly reviewing the nature of classification research. Then we discuss the evolution of definitions of LD, making explicit the classification hypotheses from which these definitions derive. An extensive review of the evidence for these hypotheses will be provided for the three components of classification implicit in the federal definition of LD: discrepancy, heterogeneity, and exclusion. We will show that classification hypotheses involving discrepancy and exclusion as embedded in federal (and state) policy have at best weak validity, often representing inaccurate and outdated assumptions about LD. There is evidence for heterogeneity of LD, but some reorganization of the types of LD identified in the federal definition may be necessary. Throughout the paper we identify alternative approaches to classification and identification, including weaknesses in any psychometric approach to the identification of LD. We suggest that classifications based on inclusionary definitions that specify attributes of different forms of LD are more desirable than current exclusionary definitions. Inclusionary definitions permit a focus on identification procedures that are intervention oriented as well as a focus on prevention, both of which are desirable and could contribute to improved results in remediating LD.

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 — 131 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Handbook of reading research 1998Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children 2000Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction 1998Child Development and Emergent Literacy 1999The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias.1983The Cost of Dichotomization 1963Educating Exceptional Children 1981Dyslexia: Theory and Research

Cited by

2003Response to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Students with Reading/Learning Disabilities 2008Implementation of Response to Intervention 2006Who Are the Young Children for Whom Best Practices in Reading Are Ineffective?2004Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers 2003Problem‐Solving Model for Decision Making with High‐Incidence Disabilities: The Minneapolis Experience 2006

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.