|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Problems of Definition and Differentiation and the Need for a Classification Schema
Howard S. Adelman
Howard Adelman is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Fernald Clinic and Laboratory, UCLA. He received his PhD in psychology from UCLA.
Linda Taylor
Linda Taylor is Assistant Director of the Fernald Clinic and Laboratory. She received her PhD in Psychology from the University of Michigan. Address: Howard Adelman, Department of Psychology, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles. CA 90024.
Howard Adelman, Guest Editors
Linda Taylor, Guest Editors
From both a theoretical and practical perspective, the majority of respondents to the future survey recognized the as yet unmet need to develop valid procedures for differential diagnosis and subtyping of learning disabilities. The foundation for developing such procedures was seen as requiring agreement about the definition of LD and appropriate ways to operationalize the definition.
There was, however, a major split among the respondents regarding how LD should be defined. Some wanted to keep the definition tied to learning problems stemming from central nervous system dysfunctions; others wanted to ignore cause and broaden the field by defining as LD any learning problem that is not readily understood. These contrasting views about definition were then reflected in the controversy among respondents about operational criteria, e.g., the appropriateness and feasibility of identifying LD based on a severe discrepancy between aptitude and achievement. Another concern was raised in connection with the matter of identifying LD subtypes, i.e., some respondents viewed such efforts as confounded by the lack of satisfactory procedures for differentiating LD from learning problems caused by other factors.
In general, then, the survey responses underscore the controversy and widespread frustration over definition and differentiation and suggest that the LD field's future integrity is very much dependent on successfully dealing with these problems. It is time, we think, for the field to take a step back from narrow debates over definition and deal with the fundamental problem of developing a comprehensive classification scheme, i.e., one in which LD is differentiated from other categories of learning problems and subtypes are conceived within each category.
The following paper on definition and subtypes focuses briefly on the nature of the definition and differentiation problems, the importance of placing and keeping LD in perspective vis à vis other learning problems, and ideas related to future development of a LD classification schema. (We should note that, in the course of recent events, the preparation of this paper for the series fell to us.)
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 19, No. 9,
514-520 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/002221948601900901
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
K. A. Kavale and S. R. Forness
What Definitions of Learning Disability Say and Don't Say: A Critical Analysis
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 2000;
33(3):
239 - 256.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Jimenez Gonzalez and I. Hernandez Valle
A Spanish Perspective on LD
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1999;
32(3):
267 - 275.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. L. Grigorenko
Russian "Defectology": Anticipating Perestroika in the Field
J Learn Disabil,
March 1, 1998;
31(2):
193 - 207.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. E. Rock, M. A. Fessler, and R. P. Church
The Concomitance of Learning Disabilities and Emotional/Behavioral Disorders: A Conceptual Model
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1997;
30(3):
245 - 263.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Schoenbrodt, L. Kumin, and J. M. Sloan
Learning Disabilities Existing Concomitantly with Communication Disorder
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1997;
30(3):
264 - 281.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Houck and C. J. Rogers
The Special/General Education Integration Initiative for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: A "Snapshot" of Program Change
J Learn Disabil,
August 1, 1994;
27(7):
435 - 453.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Hallahan
Some Thoughts on Why the Prevalence of Learning Disabilities Has Increased
J Learn Disabil,
October 1, 1992;
25(8):
523 - 528.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Adelman
LD: The Next 25 Years
J Learn Disabil,
January 1, 1992;
25(1):
17 - 22.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. G. Aaron
Can Reading Disabilities Be Diagnosed Without Using Intelligence Tests?
J Learn Disabil,
March 1, 1991;
24(3):
178 - 186.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. T. Korhonen
Neuropsychological Stability and Prognosis of Subgroups of Children with Learning Disabilities
J Learn Disabil,
January 1, 1991;
24(1):
48 - 57.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Houck, J. B. Engelhard, and C. H. Geller
Special Education Supervisors' Perceptions of Secondary LD Programs: A Comparison with LD Teachers' Views
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1990;
23(5):
320 - 324.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Adelman
Opinion Papers: Toward Solving the Problems of Misidentification and Limited Intervention Efficacy
J Learn Disabil,
December 1, 1989;
22(10):
608 - 612.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Adelman
Beyond the Learning Mystique: An Interactional Perspective on Learning Disabilities
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1989;
22(5):
301 - 304.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Adelman, B. A. Lauber, P. Nelson, and D. C. Smith
Toward a Procedure for Minimizing and Detecting False Positive Diagnoses of Learning Disability
J Learn Disabil,
April 1, 1989;
22(4):
234 - 244.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Forness
Reductionism, Paradigm Shifts, and Learning Disabilities
J Learn Disabil,
August 1, 1988;
21(7):
421 - 424.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. A. Adelman and H. S. Adelman
Rodin, Patton, Edison, Wilson, Einstein: Were They Really Learning Disabled?
J Learn Disabil,
May 1, 1987;
20(5):
270 - 279.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. S. Adelman
Commentaries
J Learn Disabil,
March 1, 1987;
20(3):
166 - 171.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
