Showing papers on "Specific learning disability published in 2005"

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Abstract: Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many questions about...

Poor school performance.

Abstract: Education is one of the most important aspects of human resource development. Poor school performance not only results in the child having a low self-esteem, but also causes significant stress to the parents. There are many reasons for children to under perform at school, such as, medical problems, below average intelligence, specific learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, emotional problems, poor socio-cultural home environment, psychiatric disorders and even environmental causes. The information provided by the parents, classroom teacher and school counselor about the child's academic difficulties guides the pediatrician to form an initial diagnosis. However, a multidisciplinary evaluation by an ophthalmologist, otolaryngologist, counselor, clinical psychologist, special educator, and child psychiatrist is usually necessary before making the final diagnosis. It is important to find the reason(s) for a child's poor school performance and come up with a treatment plan early so that the child can perform up to full potential.

Identifying Specific Learning Disability Is Responsiveness to Intervention the Answer

Abstract: Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. I argue that there are many questions about RTI that remain unanswered, and radical changes in proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Many fundamental issues related to RTI are unresolved, and a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions on how to modify present procedures are provided.

Specific learning disability: the invisible handicap.

Abstract: Dyslexia (or specific reading disability) is the most common and most carefully studied of the SpLD, affecting 80% of all those identified as learning-disabled(4). The incidence of dyslexia in school children in USA ranges between 5.3-11.8(7). Although previously it was believed that dyslexia affects boys primarily, recent data indicate that boys and girls are affected equally(3,4). The earlier male preponderance has been attributed to a referral bias in school-identified children(8).

Research-supported differential diagnosis of specific learning disabilities

Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter discusses research-generated inclusionary criteria for defining dyslexia in children and adults. Writing disabilities, in particular, are under-diagnosed and under-treated and may be an unrecognized contributor to academic failure and school drop-out rates. The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) defines dyslexia as a specific learning disability characterized by unexpected difficulty in accuracy and rate of decoding, word reading and text reading, and spelling. Exclusionary criteria prevent confusion of dyslexia with reading problems having other biological causes. The University of Washington (UW) research team conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the measurement model based on latent traits underlying multiple indicators or measures of the same process. Current school assessment practices focus on making educational decisions about whether children qualify for special education services rather than on making differential diagnoses. Insufficient attention is given to etiology of reading problems, linking assessment to research-supported effective instruction, and prognosis for long-range outcomes.

Learning Disabilities and Social Skills: Reflections

Abstract: I recall a conversation I had very early in my public school career with the mother of one of the students in our program for students with learning disabilities (LD). Over the previous three or four years, this mother had been a very strong and effective advocate for her son, managing to get him enrolled in one of the first LD classes in the city and making certain that he received every possible allowable service. Neal, her son, had made good progress in the program, and at this point we were returning him to the general education class full time with support services from special education. As I discussed this administrative decision with Mrs. Davis, the mother, I expected her to be pleased about her son's progress and to express her appreciation of this school program. Instead, to my surprise, she responded by making two points. First of all, she was certain that Neal would not have made this progress if she had not spent countless hours in the evening tutoring him. In other words, we were not nearly rigorous enough in our teaching. And second, which was even more unnerving to me, she stated that we had failed to teach her son critical social skills. When pressed, she pointed out that Neal was a nice, quiet boy, but was too compliant. She had no confidence in his ability to resist inappropriate peer requests. If some of the neighborhood children told him to pilfer from the local store, for example, she was not sure that he would refuse. Although I did not overtly contest her statements, my inner reaction was that Mrs. Davis was unrealistic in her expectations of the public schools. Nevertheless, that conversation has continued to resonate with me, and three decades later I am increasingly convinced of the truth of her words. The Nature of Social Skill Deficits for Populations with Learning Disabilities Johnson and Myklebust (1967) provided some of the earliest professional work that I encountered on social skills and learning disabilities. They presented the socially imperceptive child, defined as having difficulty with "the perception of the total social field, perception of oneself in relation to the behavior of others as well as to events and circumstances that involve others" (p. 295). These authors viewed social imperception as a specific learning disability, and saw socially imperceptive learners has having difficulty interpreting the behaviors of others, particularly in nonverbal communication such as reading the facial expressions of others. The research literature repeatedly has documented the difficulty children with learning and other mild disabilities have in comprehending nonverbal cues and with problem solving (e.g., Cartledge, Stupay, & Kaczala, 1996; Forness & Kavale, 1996; Nixon, 2001). Students with LD are also noted to have problems with attending to task, with social communication, and with peer acceptance (Nixon, 2001). In their pioneering work, LD professionals such as Johnson and Myklebust (1967) assumed these social skill deficits represented a neurological learning disorder specific to learners with LD. Others have questioned this premise, however, noting that (a) some children with LD evidence no social skill deficits; (b) children with LD perform similarly to other at-risk groups, such as juvenile delinquents or children with academic deficits on social skill assessments; and (c) social skill deficits are not specific to children with LD (e.g., Gresham, 1993; Schumaker & Deshler, 1995). Furthermore, the source of the social skill deficit is considered to be immaterial; children need to receive appropriate interventions according to the nature of their social skill deficit, not based on speculation on some underlying cause. This more behavioral, skills training (SST) approach has dominated the field of social skills training and is the model that I have used in my own work. Social Skill Interventions Since the early writings on this topic in the 1960s and 1970s, formal social skill assessments (e. …

Perceived Usefulness of Recommendations Given to College Students Evaluated for Learning Disability.

Abstract: The present study evaluated the utilization and perceived usefulness of recommendations made to college students as the result of an evaluation and subsequent diagnosis of a specific learning disability. Participants were 47 college students who had received a diagnosis of learning disability within the previous two semesters at a university assessment clinic. Students rated 31 different recommendations in terns of past usage (prior to their evaluation), usage subsequent to their evaluation, perceived usefulness, and barriers to utilization of recommendations. While all recommendations were rated as useful, higher ratings tended to occur for recommendations including program modifications (e.g. course waivers) and training strategies (e.g. study aids). Least utilized recommendations were those with a significant time or monetary commitment. Legislation and educational initiatives over the past 30 years have led to increased services for college students with learning disabilities (LD) (Pitoniak & Royer, 2001). Many colleges and universities now provide testing accommodations, course substitutions, and academic support services to students with LD. One framework for describing the services offered by most post-secondary institutions is to group them into two categories: environment changing and student changing (Rath & Royer, 2002). The former type includes assistive technologies, program modification, and direct assistance in the form of tutoring. The latter includes a variety of counseling options, strategy training, and programs to strengthen weak academic skills. More specifically, students are provided audio-taped books, readers, note-takers, and proofreading programs. Testing accommodations might involve extended time on tests, solitary rooms, changes in the test format, oral or taped examinations, and orally taped response options. Other services might include personal therapy to address psycho-social issues, career counseling, peer support groups, study skills groups, or self-advocacy training. A second framework is to consider services in terms of what they imply about the interrelationship between the student and his/her environment (Dunn, Brown, & McGuigan, 1994; Rempfer, Hildenbrand, Parker, & Brown, 2003). For example, from the perspective of the medical model, the purpose of the evaluation would be to determine what is wrong with the student, and the goal of the intervention or service would be to set a plan to correct that problem. This perspective places little to no emphasis on the context of the student’s difficulty. Other approaches to intervention, however, might examine ways in which the person-environment fit could

Impact of the americans with disabilities act on services for persons with learning disabilities

Abstract: The ADA provides its own definition of disability. The term is defined as: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. The phrase physical or mental impairment means: (i) Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfiguration, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genitourinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; and (ii) Any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or metal illness, and specific learning disabilities.…The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working (EEOC & U.S. Department of Justice, 1991, pp. 16–18 as cited in Hishinuma & Fremstad, 1997).Apparently, persons identified with specific learning disabilities are covered under the ADA (Hishinuma & Fremstad, 1997). Grant and Grant (2002) affirmed that learning disabilities have been viewed as a perplexing category of exceptionality. Learning disabilities are marked in persons by a discrepancy between intellectual ability and actual school achievement. There are many definitions for the term learning disability. In fact, lack of commonality for defining the term has been cited as the reason for a vast difference in agreement of prevalence (Kirk et al., 2003). As Stanovich (1989) stated, “the decision to base the definitions of a reading disability on a discrepancy with measured IQ is…nothing short of astounding. Certainly, one would be hard pressed to find a concept more controversial than intelligence in all psychology” (p. 487). Even though there is a lack of common definition for learning disability, it is agreed upon that students with learning disabilities comprise the largest proportion of students receiving special education services (Kirk et al., 2003). The Federal Register (1999) has established criteria and non-criteria for identification of students with a specific learning disability. The criteria include: (a) presence of academic difficulties; (b) perceptual disabilities; (c) brain injury; (d) minimal brain dysfunction; (e) dyslexia; and (f) developmental aphasia. The non-criteria include: (a) academic problems due to visual, hearing, or motor disability; (b) mental retardation; (c) emotional disturbance; and (d) environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (Murdick et al., 2002).