Follow-up of an experiment in selection for remedial education

Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: a perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University

This article reviews issues related to the definition of learning disabilities in the context of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. Four major questions are addressed: (a) Who is learning disabled? (b) How should learning disabilities be assessed? (c) Who is qualified to make a decision about whether or not an individual has a learning disability? and (d) What accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and how should they be selected? Although these are complicated and difficult questions, it is possible to develop a simple, reasonable classification system for learning disabilities, and to conduct assessments based on a coherent and relevant set of achievement tests in which individuals who score below a cutoff are considered learning disabled. Scores on IQ tests are irrelevant and not useful and may even be discriminatory. The issues of decision making regarding learning disabilities and appropriate accommodations remain significant dilemmas for the field; resolution of these issues seems virtually impossible without agreement on appropriate procedures for the definition, identification, and assessment of learning disabilities.

Detection of young children in need of reading help. Evaluation of specific reading disability formulas

To determine whether formula-based definitions of specific reading disability (SRD) were related to the actual classroom performance of children aged 7 1/2, the authors applied five definitions of SRD to a cohort of 243 children. The children were followed from birth and not selected on the basis of cognitive, reading, or academic performance criteria. The authors determined the concurrent validity of each of the formulas by comparing the prediction of each definition to whether the child received additional reading help in the classroom. Although the years behind method was significantly better than other approaches, no method identified more than 48 percent of the children who were given additional reading help. This study questions the ability of formula-based definitions adequately to identify young children with reading dysfunction.