severe learning disabilities || learning disabilities identification: do researchers have the...

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Learning Disabilities Identification: Do Researchers Have the Answer?Author(s): Judy L. Olson and David J. MealorSource: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, Severe Learning Disabilities (Autumn,1981), pp. 389-392Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510740 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 04:37

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 195.78.109.119 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:37:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510740?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


LEARNING DISABILITIES IDENTIFICATION:

DO RESEARCHERS HAVE THE ANSWER?

-Judy L. Olson and David J. Mealor

Abstract. One hundred and thirteen studies were reviewed to determine how researchers identify their LD samples. Populations were compared on academic, process, intelligence, exclusion, and discrepancy components as well as the demographic characteristics of age, sex, and grade. Researchers were found most often to select the academic and intelligence components and the demographic characteristics of age and sex to identify their populations. However, these components were described in a variety of ways. Less than half of the researchers used the process or exclusion components or included a description of grade placement. The article includes suggestions for obtaining more generalizability of research findings based on results of the review of existing research studies.

Even though a national definition of learning disabilities has been in existence since 1969 (Mercer, 1979), the area of learning disabilities (LD) continues to suffer from problems in defining and identifying the LD population. The national definition essentially includes process, academic, and exclusion components which are described as follows: 1) process - "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological pro- cesses" (U.S.O.E., 1977, p. 65083); 2) academics - "an imperfect ability to read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations" (U.S.O.E., 1977, p. 65083); exclusion - "learning problems which are not primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage" (U.S.O.E., 1977, p. 65083).

On the other hand, the federal regulations for identification of LD students, that is, the criteria for determining learning disability (U.S.O.E., 1977, p. 65083) include basically the academic and exclusion components from the definition plus a discrepancy component. First introduced by Bateman (1965), discrepancy is defined as "not achieving commensurate with a student's age and ability levels" (U.S.O.E., 197, p.

65083). Recently a group of professionals (members of

the National Joint Committee for Learning Dis- abilities) representative of the many fields in- volved with learning disabilities proposed a new definition which recognizes the heterogeneity of the LD population (see Hammill, Leigh, McNutt, & Larsen, in this issue). Moreover, the definition includes academic, discrepancy, and exclusion components described as follows: Academic- "difficulties in the acquisition and use of reading, writing, or mathematical abilities"; discrepancy--"significant difficulties"; exclusion-"the learning disability is not the direct result of other handicapping conditions or environmental influences". The definition has already been endorsed by several of the govern- ing boards represented on the interdisciplinary

JUDY L. OLSON, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Exceptional Education, University of Central Florida.

DAVID J. MEALOR, Ph.D., is Director, School Psychology Program, University of Central Florida.

Volume 4, Fall 1981 389



committe. Perhaps this recent development will lead to more uniformity in describing the LD population.

However, currently experts often disagree on which of the above components to use in identifying the LD population. For example, Hallahan and Kauffman (1976) ignore the process component of the present definition, while others include this variable (Kirk & Gallagher, 1979). Yet others do not consider the exclusion component to be justifiable (Wallace & McLoughlin, 1979). Finally, Bryan and Bryan (1978) contend that this professional disagreement on the conditions identifying the LD population was responsible for the absence of a new definition in the regulations of PL 94-142.

Among practitioners (Vaughn & Hodges, 1973) and State Departments of Education (Mercer, Forgnone, & Wolking, 1976), the same lack of agreement is apparent, resulting in variations in the conditions or components selected to define and identify LD students. In summary, it appears that professionals in the field perceive the LD child in a variety of ways.

A group of professionals yet to be surveyed on this issue are researchers. Which components of the national definition and criteria guidelines do researchers tend to select for population identification? Do researchers, unlike other professionals, present a more uniform picture of the LD student?

As part of a recent examination of the characteristics of research on learning and reading disabilities, Torgesen and Dice (1980) analyzed the procedures for selection of target populations. The present examination differs from the Torgesen and Dice study by only focusing on learning disabilities research, that is, the target population had to be identified specifically as learning disabled to be considered. The various researchers' descriptions were analyzed using a conceptual model which included both the federal definition and identification regulations. The purpose of this review was to examine and summarize how researchers identify the LD student using current identification and definitional criteria.

METHOD All research articles published from 1975 to

1980 in Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of School Psychology, Learning Disability

Quarterly, and Psychology in the Schools were examined. However, only data-based articles were analyzed. An additional selection criterion required the inclusion of LD in the title of the article or the accompanying abstract. This stipula- tion was designed to assist in the location of the studies and to insure that all reviewers were selecting the appropriate category. Studies from this particular time period were chosen based on the hypothesis that researchers would be in- fluenced in their population selection by the guidelines in PL 94-142, thus promoting more uniformity in population descriptions.

Using an adaptation of the conceptual frame- work created by Mercer (1979) in his discussion of LD definition and criteria issues, process, academic, exclusion, intelligence, and discrepancy factors were analyzed along with the demographic characteristics of grade, age, and sex. These descriptors were examined in the follow- ing manner. First, it was determined whether a given researcher had included the variables and, if so, how they were described. For instance, the academnic component was examined in terms of the total number of researchers who included academic performance in their population description. Second, the variable was further analyzed as to the number of these same researchers who described academics as reading performance, math performance, etc.

Table 1 shows the classification categories for all variables. Reviewers marked a definition as including the discrepancy component if the researcher indicated that performance was not commensurate with some standard, such as grade level or IQ score.

RESULTS A total of 113 research studies were reviewed.

Table 1 presents a summary of the number of studies including the various factors. Demographic Characteristics

In describing the target population, 53% of the studies included a sex description. Even though researchers most often selected both males and females for their populations (80%), an examination of individual studies revealed a three-to-one ratio of males to females. Forty- three percent of the researchers included grade level with 78% of the subjects being selected from kindergarten through sixth grade. Age was mentioned in 63% of the studies with the five-

390 Learning Disability Quarterly



TABLE 1

Variables in LD Descriptions

Sex Grade Age Range IQ

(N = 60) (N = 49) (N = 71) (N = 67)

Male 12 K-3 8 5-11 32 Less than 75 3

Female 0 4-6 8 12+ 15 75-79 3

Both 48 K-6 22 Both 24 80-84 7

7-9 7 85-89 12

10+ 1 90-99 12

Other 3 100 + 5

'Average' 25

Process Academics Exclusion' * Discrepancy

(N = 25) (N = 62) (N = 51) (N = 36)

Test Alone 20 Reading 12 Emotional Handicap 31 Academic 36

Language 3 Math 3 Physical Handicap 13 Process 0

Visual-Auditory Both 46 Sensory Disability 22 Processing Problems 2 Spelling 1 Mental Retardation 11

Cultural Deprivation 6

* Number of studies that included variable

*' Some studies listed more than one area of exclusion

through eleven-year range (45%) being the most prevalent. However, 33% of the researchers selected subjects from an age span of at least six years; most did not mention mean age. Intelligence

An intelligence criterion was listed by 59% of the researchers with the largest group of subjects (37%) falling in the "average" range. Twenty- three percent of the researchers reported IQ ranges greater than two standard deviations (30 points) in their population descriptions. Definition and Identification Components

A total of 22% of the researchers included psychological process, 55% academic, 45% exclusion, and 32% discrepancy variables. Process was most often described in terms of performance on such tests as the ITPA and the Detroit, while academics most often included both reading and math (74%). The discrepancy component was always mentioned in conjunction with academics; that is, of the 62 researchers who included an academic descriptor 36 (58%)

related this descriptor to a discrepancy factor. The exclusion factors most universally cited were emotional handicaps (61%) and sensory disabilities (43%).

Eighteen percent of the researchers surveyed referred the reader to state guidelines for identification criteria, while 19% made no mention of any identification criteria. Those citing no criteria tended to define their LD population in terms of placement in LD programs.

DISCUSSION The results of the review demonstrated that,

as a group, researchers present a no more uniform picture of the LD student than do experts and practitioners.

The academic component was selected by a majority of researchers (55%) for subject definition, yet only half described academic problems in conjunction with a significant deficit (discrepancy). Thus, it appears that many researchers may be identifying remedial students and not the

Volume 4, Fall 1981 391



severely learning disabled. The listing by only 45% of the researchers of exclusion factors was a surprising finding. Perhaps, by virtue of defining the intelligence of their population, researchers assumed that stipulating the exclusion of the mentally retarded would be redundant. The low percentage of researchers who excluded cultural disadvantage is seen as representative of the difficulty of defining exactly what constitutes cultural deprivation. On the other hand, researchers had less difficulty excluding emotional- ly handicapped children. This finding appears to be in conflict with the literature (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1976) which argues that these two groups are often difficult to distinguish.

The finding that few researchers selected a process component to describe LD subjects reflects the current controversy in the field over process testing instruments and the numerous studies (Hammill & Larsen, 1974; Newcomer & Hammill, 1976) that have questioned the relia- bility and validity of process testing. Moreover, although the process component is included in the definition, unlike the other components, the identification of a process disorder is not required for LD placement as specified in the federal guidelines.

Two rather distressing findings of the present study were the failure of 37% of the researchers to define the population under investigation other than by label or placement, and the selection by many researchers of children represent- ing a wide variability in age and intelligence. Thus, the research descriptions surveyed are characteristic of the lack of agreement and con- sistency surrounding the identification criteria used in the learning disabilities field. As such, they are also symptomatic of the tendency in public education to group students with varying problems under the LD label.

Based on the results of this divergent picture of LD subjects presented by researchers, researchers in the future are urged to thoroughly describe and to control variability in their population selections. For a finding which is descriptive of one group of LD subjects may be overlooked if it is not replicated with another group, even though each may have been identified with dif-

ferent criteria. Ultimately, researchers appear to have two options: to lead the field in its search for specificity in the identification of subgroups of the LD population, or to follow the guidelines proposed by others.

REFERENCES Bateman, B. An educator's view of a diagnostic

approach to learning disorders. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Learning disorders, Vol. 1. Seattle: Special Child Publication, 1965.

Bryan, T., & Bryan, J. Understanding learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred Publishing Co. Inc., 1978.

Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. Introduction to learning disabilities: A psychobehavioral approach. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.

Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41, 5-15.

Kirk, S.J., & Gallagher, J. Educating exceptional children (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1979.

Mercer, C. Children and adolescents with learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1979.

Mercer, C.D., Forgnone, C., & Wolking, W.D. Defi- nitions of learning disabilities used in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 376-386.

Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. Psycholinguistics in the schools. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1976.

Torgesen, J.K., & Dice, C. Characteristics of research on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1980, 13, 531-535.

U.S. Office of Education. Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 1977, 43, 65082-65085.

Vaughn, R., & Hodges, L. A statistical survey into a definition of learning disabilities: A search for acceptance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 658-664.

Wallace, G., & McLoughlin, J. Learning disabilities: Concepts and characteristics (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1979.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Judy Olson, College of Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816.

392 Learning Disability Quarterly



severe learning disabilities || learning disabilities identification: do researchers have the...

Documents