The Problems of Definition and Differentiation and the Need for a Classification Schema

Author:

Adelman Howard S.1,Taylor Linda2,Adelman Howard,Taylor Linda

Affiliation:

1. 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.

2. 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.

Abstract

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.)

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Health Professions,Education,Health(social science)

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The Solomon effect in learning disabilities diagnosis: Can we learn from history?;School Psychology Quarterly;2006

2. What Definitions of Learning Disability Say and Don't Say;Journal of Learning Disabilities;2000-05

3. A Spanish Perspective on LD;Journal of Learning Disabilities;1999-05

4. Russian “Defectology”;Journal of Learning Disabilities;1998-03

5. Learning Disabilities;Handbook of Child Psychopathology;1998

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3