definitions of learning disabilities from adults with learning disabilities: the insiders'...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Definitions of Learning Disabilities from Adults with Learning Disabilities: The Insiders'PerspectivesAuthor(s): Henry B. Reiff, Paul J. Gerber and Rick GinsbergSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 114-125Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511133 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 11:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:33:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511133?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES FROM ADULTS WITH LEARNING DISABILI-

TIES: THE INSIDERS' PERSPECTIVES

Henry B. Reiff, Paul J. Gerber, and Rick Ginsberg

Abstract. Definitions of learning disabilities typically include the perspectives of professionals from educational, psychological, medical, and sociopolitical fields. De- cision-makers in learning disabilities have rarely solicited the views of an important population of individuals who live with this label, adults with learning disabilities. This article presents responses from a sample of successful adults with learning disabilities who were asked to define the term learning disabilities. In addition to a number of constructs found in many existing definitions, responses include perceptions and conceptualizations that are only available from first-hand experience of living with learning disabilities into the adult years. Even when these perceptions evidence technical inaccuracies, their personal nature offers important insights into the effects of learning disabilities throughout the lifespan. Future attempts to arrive at a uniform definition of learning disabilities, especially in adulthood, should include or at least consider input from adults with learning disabilities.

Thirty years ago, Dr. Samuel Kirk coined a new term, learning disabilities, presumably in an effort to help parents and professionals understand why some children of normal intelligence experienced significant difficulty learning and performing in school. Apparently, Kirk's (1962) explanation was not satisfactory to a wide range of professionals and other interested parties who attempted to grapple with this phenomenon. In the ensuing decades, therefore, at least 10 additional definitions achieved some degree of popularity (Hammill, 1990).

The issue of defining learning disabilities has generated significant and ongoing controversy. Part of this difficulty lies in a kind of identity cri- sis: Is the construct of learning disabilities an educational, psychological, or social-political concern, or possibly some complex combination of all of these concerns? Adding to this confusion, education and psychology are low-consensus fields dealing with human behavior and its theoretical constructs, of which learning disabilities is one (Reynolds, 1986).

In the midst of the debate to formulate a uni-

form definition, Hammill (1990) contended that the field of learning disabilities is heading toward an emerging consensus. Through a comparison of 11 definitions that are prominent today or were previously, Hammill (1990) delineated nine significant elements by which definitions could be contrasted. The nine elements include (a) underachievement determination, (b) central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction etiology, (c) process involvement, (d) presence throughout the lifespan, (e) specification of spoken language problems as potential learning disabilities, (f) specification of academic problems as potential

HENRY B. REIFF, Ph.D., is Assistant Profes- sor of Education, Western Maryland College. PAUL J. GERBER, Ph.D., is Professor of Spe- cial Education and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth Univer- sity/Medical College of Virginia. RICK GINSBERG, Ph.D., is Associate Profes- sor of Education, University of South Carolina.

114 Learning Disability Quarterly



learning disabilities, (g) specification of conceptual problems as potential learning disabilities, (h) specification of other conditions as potential learning disabilities, and (i) allowance for the multihandicapping nature of learning disabilities.

Definitions that evidenced an agreement rate of 67% or greater on these elements were clus- tered together. Hammill's subsequent analysis re- vealed that considerable agreement exists among the definitions on the nine elements and that the definitions generally fall into two clus- ters. One cluster, comprising four lesser used definitions, focuses primarily on disorders in the learning processes; the other cluster, consisting of seven more currently popular definitions, tends to emphasize specific factors such as language and academic deficits.

In spite of such agreement, arguments over theoretical constructs or conceptualization have occupied considerable research in the past and persist in recent literature. For example, Cruick- shank (1975) voiced concern that many definitions did not conceptualize learning disabilities specifically as a function of perceptual deficits. In the view of other professionals, the most glar- ing omission in defining learning disabilities centered on social skill deficits (Interagency Com- mittee on Learning Disabilities, 1987).

Yet, other professionals turned their attention from what was excluded to critically examining elements traditionally included in most definitions. For example, Siegel (1989) provoked significant debate by questioning whether IQ should be used as part of the theoretical construct in defining learning disabilities. Some researchers countered Siegel's (1989) contention by offering social, historical, political, and practical reasons why the IQ test is of use to the learning disabilities field (Wong, 1989).

Framing learning disabilities in such pragmatic concerns is not surprising, for the term has had substantial impact on educational policy regardless of theoretical debate. In some ways, educa- tors have used the term primarily to describe students who did not "fit" into other exception- alities (Mercer, King-Sears, & Mercer, 1990). Thus, the definitions of learning disabilities may function simultaneously as theory and policy, thereby not only affecting the way learning disabilities are conceptualized but identification and placement procedures as well. The circumstan- tial purposes of diverse decision-makers often

determine the use of a particular definition, which may have a profound impact on the life of an individual with learning difficulties.

Decision-makers are often self-appointed "representatives" of the learning disabled con- stituency. However, the participants in the defi- nitional debates rarely solicit the views of individuals who live with the label. This omission raises some concern, especially in light of a paradigm shift that focuses less on what professionals can do for persons with disabilities and more on what persons with disabilities can do for themselves (Reiff & deFur, 1992). Consequently, it may be appropriate for the field to listen to these other voices in the quest for a valid and widely acceptable definition.

A continuing discussion on definitions is largely positive and perhaps necessary to pre- vent the field from growing stagnant (Reynolds, 1986). However, although the dialectic may be intellectually healthy, the need for a resolution to the issue is becoming urgent. Silver (1988) ad- monished that the lack of a uniform definition limits the value of epidemological, clinical, basic, and educational research. Soliciting the experiences of individuals with learning disabilities, that is, listening to the insiders' perspectives, not only lends a critical dimension to the discussion but should also be valuable in developing more consensual conceptualizations of the term. Addi- tionally, the insiders' perspectives may be essential for understanding and defining learning disabilities in adulthood.

In attempting to define learning disabilities in adulthood, a new set of problems emerges. Hammill's (1990) assertion that the field is mov- ing toward consensus on a uniform definition applies only to children with learning disabilities; none of the definitions that Hammill analyzed focuses specifically on the adult manifestations of learning disabilities. Mellard (1990) reported that the California Community College system designed a model to provide a clear definition of the learning disability construct for adults. The model emphasizes a persistent condition despite instruction in standard classroom situations.

The definition has five components, three of which-IQ, processing, and discrepancy-are found, in one form or another, in most definitions (Hammill, 1990). The unique components include adaptive behavior and a measured achievement deficit in a specific skill including

Volume 16, Spring 1993 115



vocational areas. Mellard (1990) pointed out that "measured achievement" (p. 79) refers to a specific deficit, allowing an individual to be successful in other areas of functioning, a qualification that recalls what Hammill (1990) referred to as "intra-individual differences" (p. 80).

The National Institute for Handicapped Re- search (now National Institute for Disability Re- search and Rehabilitation) state-of-the-art adult with learning disabilities conference in 1982 es- tablished the development of a definition for adults with learning disabilities as a top priority. It is likely that the paucity of research on adults with learning disabilities has impeded a realization of this goal. At present, the Rehabilitative Services Administration (RSA) has adopted a formal definition (RSA, 1989), which focuses on employment, avoids reference to academic difficulties, and includes problems with social com- petence and social maturity as potential learning disabilities. Otherwise, all other components (i.e., CNS dysfunction etiology, process involvement, and specification of specific problems) have origins in other currently used definitions. Thus, the framework for defining learning disabilities in adulthood continues to be largely a theoretical or conceptual rather than an empirical construct. After all, the database is primarily a collection of theoretical perspectives.

Gerber (1990) expressed concern that so much of programming for persons with learning disabilities lacks empirical, field-tested founda- tions. This type of concern suggests that the validity of a framework for assessing definitions must itself be subject to an empirical basis for defining learning disabilities.

One study that did employ this method was based on interviews with 26 adolescents at a residential school for children with severe learning disabilities (Schneider, 1984). The students tended to evidence limited conceptualizations of learning disabilities and to attribute problems to their own lack of effort. Nevertheless, they un- derstood several elements of traditional formula- tions. For example, many felt they were intelligent overall but deficient in certain specific abilities. Additionally, they implicitly suggested a kind of exclusion clause, pointing out a number of factors that they felt were not responsible for their difficulties.

As a result of these findings, Schneider (1984) advocated the use of counseling with students

with learning disabilities to promote better understanding of the term. The study concluded by emphasizing the importance of further research into the perceptions of individuals with learning disabilities.

Additional research into individual perceptions used definitions by nine adults with learning disabilities as a preface to ethnographic interviews with these subjects (Gerber & Reiff, 1991). Rather than commenting directly on the definitions, the authors accepted the responses and encouraged the reader to factor the subjects' perceptions into the interviews and discussion. The purpose of this study was to allow adults with learning disabilities to speak for themselves. Nevertheless, professionals may be able to add to the knowledge base by applying such data to the ongoing debate over definitions.

The experiences and perspectives of adults with learning disabilities present a validation measure that is subjective, yet unimpeachable. The necessarily subjective component of assessing one's personal experiences represents an essential element of the heterogeneity of learning disabilities. The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) begins its definition (NJCLD, 1988), lauded by Hammill (1990) as being the best of currently used definitions, by acknowledging that learning disabilities is a heterogeneous group of disorders. Moreover, personal perceptions constitute a valid basis for conceptualizing the functional implications of the disability, in some cases lending insights that are unavailable to even the most astute outside observer.

In a review of longitudinal and follow-up stud- ies of adults with learning disabilities (Gerber, Reiff, & Ginsberg, 1988), we contended that the need exists to utilize "inside-out" research perspectives whereby individual subjects would describe systemic components of learning disabilities in adulthood. Such qualitative approaches provide a means to confirm or challenge conclusions or assumptions generated by quantitative analyses. Miles and Huberman (1984) expressed the potential benefits of referring to the personal perceptions of adults with learning disabilities to validate current definitions:

Qualitative data are attractive. They are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve the




chronological flow, assess local causality, and derive fruitful explanations. Then, too, qualitative data are more likely to lead to serendipi- tous findings and to new theoretical integra- tions; they help researchers go beyond initial preconceptions and frameworks. (p. 15) The purpose of this article is to explore the

perceptions of the construct of learning disabilities held by adults with learning disabilities. First- hand experience is vital for helping professionals in the field of learning disabilities understand and appreciate the realities of living with learning disabilities. Such information provides a useful yardstick for measuring current conceptualizations, for one criterion of a definition's validity must be the ability to reflect or correlate with the experiences of those who receive a label based on that definition. Furthermore, those insiders' perspectives may provide a foundation for for- mulating a new definition that blends current theoretical constructs with first-hand experience.

METHOD Subjects

The subjects for this study participated in a project investigating alterable patterns in employment success for moderately and highly successful adults with learning disabilities (Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1990). To identify a target population, the researchers solicited nomina- tions from the National Network of Learning Disabled Adults, the Orton Dyslexia Society, the Learning Disabilities Association (formerly ACLD), and a number of other related organizations throughout the country. Of the 241 persons nominated, the researchers determined that 181 were eligible for screening into the participant pool.

To ascertain the presence of learning disabilities, the researchers developed a screening in- ventory that provided information about how and when the learning disabilities had been identified and whether or not other disabling conditions (e.g., hearing or vision loss, physical disability, or emotional condition) were more significant than the learning disabilities. If any other disability received a higher rating, the can- didate was excluded.

Additionally, potential subjects self-rated on a 7-point scale the severity of learning disabilities at school age and currently for 12 characteristics: listening, speaking, reading, writing,

spelling, mathematical abilities, perception, co- ordination, impulsivity, distractibility, hyperactivity, and attention span. The majority of the potential subjects had been identified as demonstrating learning disabilities either in school or as adults. The screening instrument al- lowed the researchers to compare the profiles of potential subjects who had no formal diagnosis to the profiles of individuals previously identified. In this way, the researchers excluded any individuals who did not evidence characteristics of identifiable learning disabilities.

The screening process included collecting de- mographic data (i.e., age, race, gender, education, income) as well as information about current occupation, job satisfaction, recognition attained in the field, and parents' occupational levels. In order to determine the participants' level of success, the researchers defined success-a subjective construct-across five vari- ables: income level, job classification (derived from Duncan Sociometric Index [Reiss, 1961]), education level, prominence in one's field, and job satisfaction.

Utilizing the data from the screening, a panel of five experts in qualitative methods rated candidates on each of the five criteria. Consensus of the panel was necessary to assign the candidates to either a moderate or a high success group.

Through this process, 71 subjects, who evidenced specific learning disabilities and had achieved either moderate or high vocational success, were selected from the 181 potential participants. The subjects came from 24 states and Canada and represented more than 30 types of occupations. Forty-eight males and 23 females comprised the sample; their ages ranged from 29-69, with an average age of 45 years. All had graduated from high school; in addition, 14 had bachelor's degrees, 19 had master's degrees, and 29 had a Ph.D. or M.D. Yearly incomes var- ied from just under $20,000 to considerably more than $100,000. Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the 71 subjects. Procedure

The investigation of successful adults with learning disabilities utilized an in-depth interview process with each participant. Participants responded to open-ended questions designed to elicit both a comprehensive portrayal of the experience of coping successfully with learning disabilities in adulthood and a retrospective view of




Table 1 Key Subject Characteristics

Occupations Occupation #Subjects

Business 22

Education 18

Health

Science

Law

Art

17

5

4 3

Journalism 2

Total=71

Income Distribution Annual Income ($) #Subjects

No answer

-10,000 10-20,000 20-30,000

30-40,000 40-50,000

50-60,000 60-75,000

75-100,000 100,000+

1

3 2 3 7

9 10

11

3 22

Total=71

Level of Education Highest Degree Held #Subjects

High school

Associate

Bachelor

Master

Doctorate

8

1

14 19 29

Total=7 1

learning disabilities from childhood to the present. Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff's (1992) report on the results of the project provides a broader context for understanding the methods and purposes of the interview procedure; the reader is encouraged to refer to this article for more detailed information.

Of particular relevance to the present study, at the end of the interview, the interviewer asked each participant the following question:

"We have sometimes addressed the issue of your disability in each of the sections, but now I'd like to focus on your learning disabilities specifically. The feelings you share regarding your disability can have a significant impact on others who may feel that they are the only ones who are different. Let's talk a little about your learning disabilities. There are many definitions of learning disabilities. How would you define learning disabilities?" This stimulus question spawned responses of

varying lengths and diverse levels of complexity. Despite a wide array of sophistication about learning disabilities in the study group, all subjects had their own definition of learning disabilities.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fifty-seven of the 71 subjects offered defini-

tions. In defining the term learning disabilities several themes appeared, a number of which are included in many current definitions; namely, (a) processing difficulties, (b) specific functional limitations, (c) underachievement determination, and (d) learning disabilities as differences-a concern that most definitions preclude. These four themes will form the basis for presenting and discussing the data. Processing Difficulties

Of the 57 definitions offered by adults with learning disabilities, 16 (i.e., 28%) focused on the concept of a processing deficit as the pri- mary explanation for learning difficulties. Most used the specific term process to describe their functioning.

The following quotations illustrate ways in which the subjects perceived processing difficulties:

"Any interruption in the learning process that makes it difficult for that person to achieve goals." "Brain is not programmed to process information like most people's brains are programmed." "Not a learning disability; it's a processing disability." "Probably a central nervous system condition that interferes with the person's ability to pro-




cess information." "A breakdown in processing." "Definitely not sensory; interpretation and perception process that is involved." "An obstacle to processing information in the normal way." "An inability because of natural causes with a person to accomplish thought processes, speech and language processes, educational processes. "Inability to process information and utilize it." "Not mental retardation, higher IQ, processing problem, you work hard and you fail." Most often, the subjects referred specifically to

problems with processing information. Addition- ally, some of their responses interwove other concepts found in many currently used definitions. One response directly cited a "central nervous system condition"; another alluded to natural causes, which may be interpreted, in context, as referring to central nervous system dysfunction. Use of the term neurological was not un- common across all definitions. Two responses evoked the exclusionary component of many definitions; that is, they stated that learning disabilities are "definitely not sensory" and "not mental retardation." Only one statement referred to "average or higher IQ," although the remark that learning disabilities make it more difficult "to achieve goals" conjures the concept of underachievement determination.

Several definitions utilized a metaphorical approach to describe processing problems. These descriptions offer a true insider's perspective and, in a sense, begin to operationalize, at least subjectively, the construct of psychological processes:

"Physical manifestation of the brain malfunc- tions and its associated behavioral aspects, not just the reduced, like dysgraphia, but also the psychological adjustments that one has to make when one knows one can't break stuff out very well." "Someone who can't concentrate on more than one thing at a time. Difficult time breaking your train of thoughts, analyzing different things." "Some areas of the brain of the neuropath- ways are jumbled, missing, in a mess, kind of stretched." "Blocks that occur in a person's ability to

sense or perceive information to assimilate that information and to spit it back out for a combination of neurological reasons, psychological reasons." "Not able to learn in the conventional way because of a technical problem in their brain that makes them unable to visually or orally remember or both." Similarities in these descriptions lie in terms

such as "can't break stuff out," "breaking your train of thoughts," "jumbled," and "blocks." The conceptual problems associated with these psychological processes are depicted as concentrat- ing, attending, and remembering. Two of the responses alluded to an emotional overlay in the use of the term "psychological."

A critical analysis of the respondents' versions of processing difficulties suggests that even successful and intelligent adults cannot describe what is going on inside their heads more clearly than has been depicted in research and definitions. The adults seem to find it difficult to clarify basic psychological processes. Professionals, too, have struggled with this concept. Thus, the NJCLD definition eliminated the term, partially because its usefulness was tenuous.

Perhaps the confusion implicit in the responses acts as a reminder that a preoccupation with CNS etiology may be theoretically fascinat- ing but of limited value in practical terms. Defini- tions of learning disabilities may become more meaningful through increased understanding of such issues as functional limitations and underachievement-two areas that adults with learning disabilities can address directly. Functional Limitations

Understandably, many subjects offered definitions that described how learning disabilities affected their lives in functional, rather than theoretical, terms. In many ways, much of the struggle in developing workable definitions has centered on ways to operationalize the term. An enlarged understanding of functional limitations may make conceptualizations more concrete as well as provide useful information in the identification of learning disabilities.

Respondents' approach to describing how learning disabilities have affected their lives recalls aspects of many definitions that point to the specification of spoken language, academic, conceptual, or other problems as potential learning disabilities (Hammill, 1990). The vari-




ability of their effects on functioning attests to the heterogeneous nature of learning disabilities. Approximately 23% (n=13) of the subjects described specific functional limitations imposed by learning disabilities. Many subjects pinpointed academic concerns, usually reading, writing, and math:

"Specific block in the attainment of academic skills that is not accounted for by mental retardation and tends to be specific to reading, math skills." "Inefficiency in reading." "All kinds of problems like reading and writing." "Difficult time with written word, comprehen- sion, handling numbers...time factor...slow reader, poor decoding, poor writing." "Person who's been diagnosed as having reading, writing, spelling, auditory, or visual problems." "Very specific like in reading or math when IQ is normal or above." "Individual difficulty in reading and writing in the accepted way." Some responses centered on language deficits

as depicting learning disabilities: "Lose meaning-inability to string words or syllables together." "A language disorder." A number of respondents captured the sense

of a generic difficulty with learning, character- ized by Hammill (1990) as conceptual problems:

"Difficulty with learning." "Difficulty in learning in some area. Could be general due to low IQ or specific like dyslexia." "Makes it more difficult for you to understand or do something you should normally be able to do." Academic and language deficits tend to elicit

the most agreement among currently used definitions. The respondents' tendency to focus on these difficulties further validates that learning disabilities result in specific functional limitations and that these specific problems persist in adulthood.

These adults' reflections offer a significant reminder in ongoing attempts to formulate definitions for adulthood. Although some manifestations of learning disabilities change in response to adult demands, the basic problems in areas such as language and math may remain the

same or even become worse (Gerber et al., 1990).

It may also be significant that, in spite of attempts to focus on nonacademic issues in definitions of learning disabilities in adulthood, many of the respondents in this study clearly alluded to classroom settings. One adult, in particular, focused on difficulty in school as the basis for defining learning disabilities: "People who have trouble functioning in a classroom, comprehend- ing, trouble staying with it." Thus, regardless of the persistence factor, for some adults the most vivid realization of learning disabilities remained in school.

Conceptual problems receive less explicit en- dorsement from definitions, possibly because these difficulties may be subsumed under the construct of process involvement. It is notewor- thy that a few of the respondents captured the ideas of conceptual disorders by recapitulating the term itself; that is, difficulty with learning. Additionally, one respondent commented on "low IQ," an idea generally antithetical to most conceptualizations of learning disabilities. Never- theless, many definitions do not address the generally held notion that persons with learning disabilities are of average or above average intelligence. Therefore, it may be necessary for a definition to tackle this issue explicitly to avoid the confusion that learning disabilities may be due to low intelligence.

Interestingly, the adults in the present study did not emphasize vocational or social difficulties-the functional areas generally highlighted in definitions of learning disabilities in adulthood (cf., Mellard, 1990; RSA, 1989). The make-up of this particular sample may offer an explanation. These adults were uniformly successful in their vocational endeavors, and, to some extent, in their social endeavors as well. Hence, their personal experiences may not reflect the outcomes of many other adults with severe learning disabilities, who have struggled to find vocational and social satisfaction (Minskoff, Hawks, Steidle, & Hoffmann, 1989).

At the same time, the subjects clearly indicated specific problems in academic areas. How- ever, their vocational outcomes demonstrate that specific limitations in areas such as math and reading do not have to hinder success in adulthood. Apparently, they learned to compensate, cope, and achieve. Consequently, perhaps defi-




nitions of learning disabilities should include some type of qualification: Although specific deficits associated with learning disabilities are real and persistent, such deficits do not necessarily preclude achievement. Underachievement Determination

In spite of having made significant accom- plishments, a number of the adults in this study felt that they had been held back in some form by learning disabilities. Almost all definitions of learning disabilities express the concept of underachievement-as either a manifestation of intra-individual differences (i.e., uneven patterns of

performance) or as a significant discrepancy between aptitude and achievement (Hammill, 1990). Operationalizing this concept, however, has proven to be an elusive endeavor. For example, when McLeskey (1989) applied a statisti- cally determined severe-discrepancy formula to 733 students identified as learning disabled, only a slight majority manifested the discrepancy. It is necessary to find a way to translate the experience of feeling that one has not reached one's potential into a meaningful and consistent method for identifying individuals with learning disabilities.

Only one subject offered a definition that focused on intra-individual differences: "Those areas in my life, academic, social, that are quite a bit suppressed in relationship to the other abilities and functions in my life." Most constructs of intra-individual differences view individual strengths rather narrowly, usually in terms of significant differences between subject areas such as math and reading. In contrast, the self-analysis presented by this subject offers a larger perspective that captures the diverse areas of functioning in adult life (i.e., educational, vocational, interpersonal, social/emotional, recreational, daily living).

Eleven percent (n=6) of the responses seemed to capture the concept of underachievement; these responses, by and large, emphasized the discrepancy construct rather than intra-individual differences:

"Prevents one from developing one's potential." "Not being able to do something in the normal manner when the basic ability is there." "Disability doesn't affect your intelligence but affects your ability to perform sometimes as intelligently as you could; can affect a variety

of areas, almost anything." "Disability other than the norm, whatever the norm is, that creates a limitation in an individual with restriction to not allow him to achieve his full potential." "A difficulty, sometimes an inability, to achieve at one's potential." "Smarter than can illustrate to others." These adults with learning disabilities recog-

nized the concept of discrepancy, and their personal experiences, in a sense, lend credence to the idea that learning disabilities result in a discrepancy between expected and actual achievement. Yet, the responses do not seem to offer a means for improving the way we operationalize the discrepancy construct. Thus, the value of first-hand experience may not lie in refining technical aspects of identification procedures such as a severe discrepancy formula.

The responses of the adults in this study un- earth, perhaps, a larger issue. Some persons with learning disabilities obviously believe that reaching or expressing their full potential presents a significant difficulty. Interestingly, none of the subjects specifically used the term under- achiever, possibly because few of them could be considered underachievers. Instead, their responses tended to focus on the idea that learning disabilities limited the ability to reach one's full potential. In this sense, the subjects implicitly suggested that they might have achieved to a greater degree if they had not had learning disabilities.

However, it may be valid to ask, "Would they really have achieved more if they did not have learning disabilities?" Many interviews indicated that, in one way or another, learning how to deal with learning disabilities provided the foundation for success. Indeed, many of the subjects felt that they were more determined, resilient, goal-oriented, and creative because of their learning disabilities. In a sense, they may have realized their full potential; they simply jour- neyed a different route to get to that destination.

The finding that 11 % of these very successful adults maintained that their achievement was not commensurate with their abilities may suggest an interpretation rather than a validation of the discrepancy construct. Perhaps the stigma of having learning disabilities prompted these adults to overlook or undervalue their own achievements. Responses recalling the discrep-




ancy construct from individuals who have achieved considerable success may suggest that

they continue to suffer from or even perseverate on messages saying that lack of academic achievement diminished them as individuals. While it may be true that certain areas of academic achievement have eluded them, equating the realization of one's potential with academic achievement may reflect a sociopolitical value rather than a valid construct for defining a different kind of learning process. Learning Disabilities as Differences

For some adults with learning disabilities, especially those who have experienced vocational success, discrepancy may be too narrow a construct to describe the effects of learning disabilities. In some cases, it may be more accurate to depict learning disabilities as a condition that ne- cessitates alternative approaches to the norm in order to reach full potential. Twelve of the subjects downplayed the construct of learning disabilities as a legitimate disability, perceiving instead their difficulties as individual differences. In other words, twice as many subjects rejected the notion of disability as accepted the concept of discrepancy. Additionally, several subjects stated that their difficulties resulted not from a disability per se but from ineffective teaching.

As the term disability traditionally denotes in- capability or a deprivation of mental strength (Morehead & Morehead, 1972), a rejection of this term by individuals who have overcome such limitations should not be surprising. Re- sponses of this nature ranged from acknowledging inherent limitations to contending that the label is erroneous, irrelevant, or socially obse- quious.

Definitions that acknowledge some kind of difficulty, but stress difference rather than disability, included:

"Can't learn the way everyone else learns." "Anything that gets in the way with the normal process of learning, whatever normal means." "Learning different. The capacity for learning is the same as normal but the way they learn is different and not normal." "Activities that are harder for you than the normal person." "Different way of learning, having to learn in a different way, an unconventional way." "Problem that you experience in a particular way.

Other definitions explicitly dismissed the notion of disability:

"Not a disability as long as you realize that you will have to work a little bit harder than other people." "Not learning disabled, it's learning different." "Normal variation of learning, of how people go about learning and communicating. Word that should be gotten rid of. Ought to find a new term." "Mind operates differently than the normal. Does not mean it doesn't work right, just different." Finally, some respondents felt that the term

was not only ill-conceived but misappropriated. Some specifically focused on poor teaching:

"Not a learning disability but a teaching disability." "Teaching disability." Speculation that learning disabilities may be

related to poor teaching is not new. For example, Hallahan and Kauffman (1988) noted that a number of theorists have contended that poor teaching may result in the types of behaviors that are likely to be identified as learning disabilities. In particular, Engelmann (1977) argued that ineffective teaching may account for up to 90% of students identified with learning disabilities.

These subjects' histories lend credence to the notion that poor learning may be largely in the mind of the beholder, or, more precisely, in the ineffectiveness of the teacher. After all, adult experience has clearly demonstrated to these subjects that they do have the ability to learn. In many cases, they found innovative ways to teach themselves. In other words, the ability to learn was always present; perhaps the knowledge of how to teach was absent. Hallahan and Kauff- man (1988) submitted that many learning disabilities could be avoided if teachers knew how to respond to diverse learning styles.

Responses that challenge the construct of a disability raise more than a rhetorical question. Historically, debate centered on the "softness" of the phenomenon. To some extent, the field attempted to legitimatize the disabling process by popularizing the term hidden handicap, largely as a response to those who doubted its veracity. The disability could not be seen, but it did impose functional limitations, namely, in the form of the ability/achievement discrepancy and specific difficulties in one or more areas related




to educational performance. For adults, a number of definitions have

shifted from functional limitations to a focus on vocational and social issues. However, some of the adults in this study did not feel that their learning differences had held them back. Per- haps they had to work harder or use unconventional methods to achieve; but ultimately, they did not experience functional limitations. Their success does not invalidate the diagnosis of learning disabilities to describe their learning style, but it does question the conventional wis- dom that persons with learning disabilities do not achieve to their potential. Limitations of the Study

Although the respondents did identify central issues found in many definitions, their insights were often restricted and sometimes erroneous, particularly with regard to processing difficulties. Thus, one adult described processing difficulties as an inability to accomplish thought and other processes-a contradiction in the sense that the same person accomplished those very processes in providing the description. Yet, technically in- accurate conceptualizations can still provide a measure of insight. For example, the term psychological was used loosely by participants, seemingly as synonymous with emotional. Most definitions deal with emotional difficulties as a separate issue. Although this distinction may provide theoretical clarity (i.e., learning problems result from some inherent deficit related to cognitive processing rather than emotional blocking), it may be unrealistic to separate emotional issues that are connected to difficulties in learning. Moreover, recent research points toward an interactional perspective in understanding the relationship between learning disabilities and other behavioral and emotional disorders (Murphy & Hicks-Stewart, 1991).

In examining the population of vocationally successful adults with learning disabilities, the meaning of functional limitations may become hazy. Admittedly, many of the subjects in this study had used and continued to use less than conventional methods to achieve their success, but such approaches do not necessarily diminish or tarnish the extent of their achievements.

Are these individuals functionally limited? Some responded that they felt they would have done even better if they had not had learning disabilities; perhaps at some level, the

ability/achievement discrepancy is real for them. Others felt they had realized their full potential. Further, in a number of cases, subjects credited learning disabilities with giving them the necessary drive and resourcefulness to achieve. While the characteristics of learning disabilities had not disappeared, their meanings and manifestations had.

Perhaps the most obvious limitations of this investigation are those endemic to qualitative research. Quantitative designs allow for relatively straightforward statistical analyses of the data, which enable the researcher simply to reject or not reject the null hypothesis. Qualitative stud- ies, on the other hand, in general must rely on more subjective analyses. In this study, the researchers made decisions, admittedly subjective, in order to clarify or analyze the data. Our analyses are open to scrutiny; we cannot hide be- hind what has been termed the "straw man of statistical significance" (Carver, 1978, p. 381). Instead, the burden of qualitative research is to let the data speak for themselves. The reader can then judge the merit of our analyses.

In this study, the data take the form of individual responses to an open-ended question. Some subjects chose not to respond. Others may have given answers they thought were "correct." Still others may have had a personal agenda that limited their ability objectively to express their experiences. Nevertheless, the presence of patterns or trends in the responses may act as a mitigating factor for individual idiosyncrasies.

The skewed nature of the participants presents yet another limitation. In a sense, many of them may be representative of gifted individuals with learning disabilities-a group that is in need of its own unique definition (Vaughn, 1989). Neverthe- less, the sample also represents a portion of adults with learning disabilities who are clearly not gifted but have succeeded in spite of the odds. In either case, their success represents a significant concern. Their perceptions are bound to be different from those of adults with learning disabilities who have not been successful, particularly with regard to functional limitations, underachievement determination, and learning disabilities as differences rather than deficits.

Finally, the selection process located only a sample of successful adults with learning disabilities, necessarily precluding individuals who did not wish to discuss their learning disabilities. Ad-




ditionally, the sample included only adults who were in the networks utilized for the study. Therefore, further research is necessary to determine their representativeness and to answer other questions raised in this discussion of limitations.

CONCLUSIONS Specific issues that emerged in the results and

discussion section deserve concluding comments. Although many professionals in the field have raised legitimate concerns about including psychological processing deficits in definitions, 28% of the subjects conceptualized learning disabilities in terms of processing difficulties. The personal nature of the responses suggests that many of these individuals felt or believed that their problems with learning were caused by some processing dysfunction in the brain. For persons with learning disabilities, the notion of psychological processing deficits is a little like jazz-hard to define but easy to recognize. Per- haps another implication for professionals is that, instead of dismissing psychological processing as unwieldy, ways to make this construct meaningful must be identified.

The perceptions of adults with learning disabilities make significant contributions to the continuing attempt to reach a definition of learning disabilities that will gain widespread support. The degree of overlap between the personal experiences of adults with learning disabilities and the constructs of many current definitions suggests how far researchers and theorists have come in conceptualizing learning disabilities.

Furthermore, divergence within this sample of adults with learning disabilities parallels differences among theoretical perspectives. In the same way that differences in theoretical, social, and philosophical perspectives result in diverse conceptualizations of learning disabilities, this sample proffered definitions that were driven not only by personal outlook but by the professional orientations of those who were interviewed. The most striking commonality of professional orien- tation is the success factor, but the vocational and career identities account for differences in conceptualizations as well. In other words, the specific occupations of the individual subjects tended to color their perspectives on how they viewed the effects and meaning of learning disabilities. For example, individuals in the medical

field often based their definitions more in medical constructs such as central nervous system etiology and processing difficulties, whereas some of those who termed learning disabilities as teaching disabilities had been teachers themselves.

The results of this study suggest that in future attempts to consolidate a definition of learning disabilities, especially in adulthood, professionals and policy-makers should incorporate the direct and personal experiences of adults who live with the condition. Otherwise, constructs are reduced to presumptions lacking a true empirical base. The voices of successful adults with learning disabilities are essential for understanding what can be accomplished and which kinds of approaches lead to success; in contrast, traditional perspectives have focused largely on what could not be achieved. It is essential that conceptualizations of learning disabilities recognize the possibilities for significant achievement.

The subjects in this study present myriad view- points; hence no single synthesized definition can fully reflect all perspectives presented. Yet, implications for a definition of learning disabilities in adulthood do arise from these data. With the inherent shortcomings of this task clearly in mind, we propose the following operational definition culled from the experiences of one specific sample of vocationally successful adults with learning disabilities:

Learning disabilities in adulthood affect each individual uniquely. For some, difficulties lie in only one specific functional area; for others, problems are more global in nature, including social and emotional problems. For many, certain functional areas of adult life are limited compared to other areas. Adults with learning disabilities are of average or above average intelligence, but intelligence oftentimes has no relation to the degree of disability. Learning disabilities persist throughout the lifespan, with some areas improving and others wors- ening. Specific deficits associated with learning disabilities are real and persistent and may pose significant difficulties in vocation and career. Nevertheless, such deficits do not necessarily preclude achievement, and in some cases, may have a positive relationship with achievement. In almost all cases, learning disabilities necessitate alternative approaches to achieve vocational success.




REFERENCES

Carver, R.P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378-399.

Cruickshank, W.M. (1975). The psychoeducational match. In W.M. Cruickshank & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), Perceptual and learning disabilities in children: Vol.1. Psychoeducational practices (pp. 71- 114). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Engelmann, S.E. (1977). Sequencing cognitive and academic tasks. In R.D. Kneedler & S.G. Tarver (Eds.), Changing perspectives in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Gerber, M. (1990, October). Critical issues: Redefin- ing the field in the 1990s. Paper presented at Council for Learning Disabilities International Con- ference, Austin, TX.

Gerber, P.J., Ginsberg, R.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1990). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Final report (Grant No. H133G80500). Washington, DC: United States Department of Edu- cation, Office of Special Education and Rehabilita- tive Services.

Gerber, P.J., Ginsberg, R.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-487.

Gerber, P.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1991). Speaking for themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adults with learning disabilities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gerber, P.J., Reiff, H.B., & Ginsberg, R. (1988). Stud- ies on learning disabled adults: Methodological and substantive considerations. Thalamus, 6(1), 1-32.

Gerber, P.J., Schnieders, C.A., Paradise, L.V., Reiff, H.B., Ginsberg, R., & Popp, P.A. (1990). Persist- ing problems of adults with learning disabilities: Self-reported comparisons from their school-age and adult years. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 570-573.

Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (1988). Excep- tional children: Introduction to special education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hammill, D.D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 74-84.

Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1987). Learning disabilities: A report to the U.S. Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Kirk, S.A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McLeskey, J. (1989). The influence of level of discrepancy on the identification of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 435-438.

Mellard, D.F. (1990). The eligibility process: Identify- ing students with learning disabilities in California's community colleges. Learning Disabilities Focus, 5. 75-90.

Mercer, C.D., King-Sears, P., & Mercer, A.R. (1990). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 141-152.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Minskoff, E.H., Hawks, R., Steidle, E.F., & Hoff- mann, EJ. (1989). A homogeneous group of persons with learning disabilities: Adults with severe learning disabilities in vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 521-528.

Morehead, A., & Morehead, L. (Eds.). (1972). The new American Webster dictionary. Chicago: Times Mirror.

Murphy, V., & Hicks-Stewart, K. (1991). Learning disabilities and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: An interactional perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 386-388.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1988). [Letter to NJCLD member organizations].

Rehabilitative Services Administration. (1989, Au- gust). Evaluation of services provided for individuals with specific learning disabilities (Vol. 1: Fi- nal report). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Contract No. 300-87-0112.

Reiff, H.B., & deFur, S. (1992). Transition for youths with learning disabilities: A focus on developing in- dependence. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(4), 237-250.

Reiss, H. (1961). Duncan socioeconomic scale. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reynolds, C.R. (1986). Toward objective diagnosis of learning disabilities. Special Services in the Schools, 2(2-3), 161-176.

Schneider, B.H. (1984). LD as they see it: Percep- tions of adolescents in a special residential school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 533-536.

Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabili- ties, 22, 469-478, 486.

Silver, L.B. (1988). A review of the federal govern- ment's Interagency Committee on Learning Disabil- ities Report to the U.S. Congress. Learning Dis- abilities Focus, 3, 73-80.

Vaughn, S. (1989). Gifted learning disabilities: Is it such a bright idea? Learning Disabilities Focus, 4, 123-126.

Wong, B.Y. (1989). Concluding comments on the special series on the place of IQ in defining learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 519-520.

FOOTNOTES Money to support this research project came from the United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Na- tional Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Re- search. Project No. H133G80500.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Henry B. Reiff, Thompson Hall, Western Maryland College, 2 College Hill, Westminster, MD 21157-4390.




definitions of learning disabilities from adults with learning disabilities: the insiders'...

Documents