Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

478

Learning Disabilities

perform poorly on the more complex reading tests for any

one of a number of reasons. For example, an individual may

read a paragraph aloud correctly but forget the answer to a

question or may read correctly but slowly. In reading single

words, the person may produce a good phonetic but inaccu-

rate rendering of a low-frequency word. The only reading

task that is not confounded with other dimensions is the read-

ing of pseudowords.

The Use of Cutoff Scores to Identify

a Learning Disability

The question arises as to how low a score should be in order

to identify a learning disability. One of the aspects of the

definitional issues is that we are not dealing with a clearly

identifiable entity when we speak of a learning disability.

Andrew Ellis (1985) has noted, in regard to dyslexia, the

proper comparison is with obesity, not measles:

For people of any given age and height there will be an uninter-

rupted continuum for painfully thin to inordinately fat. It is en-

tirely arbitrary where we draw the line between ‘normal’ and

‘obese,’ but that does not prevent obesity being a real and worry-

ing condition nor does it prevent research into the causes and

cures of obesity being both valuable and necessary. . . . There-

fore, to ask how prevalent dyslexia is in the general population

will be as meaningful, and as meaningless, as asking how preva-

lent obesity is. The answer will depend entirely upon where the

line is drawn. (p. 172)

Measles is easy to diagnose because of the spots. People with

learning disabilities have no spots, only some test scores. In

a manner similar to the diagnosis of obesity, it is not clear at

what point or how low the score is for the person to be con-

sidered learning disabled or how overweight a person must

be before he or she is called obese. In the most extreme

cases, it is clear. However, we are really dealing with degrees

of severity and not with a clear question of absence or pres-

ence, except in the more extreme cases when the diagnosis is

easy.

Deciding on the appropriate cutoff score below which

one identifies a learning disability is problematic. As a

guideline, many have typically used scores below the 25th

percentile (e.g., Fletcher, 1985; Rourke, 1991). This cutoff

is arbitrary, but there is some evidence of the validity of this

score. First of all, a number of studies have found that this

score separates learning disabled from normally achieving

individuals on a variety of tasks (e.g., Fletcher, 1985;

Rourke & Finlayson, 1978; Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar,

1990; Siegel & Ryan, 1988). Does that mean that 25% of the

population will be called learning disabled on the basis of

that test? In reality, this is not the case, and this cutoff iden-

tifies about 7–8% of the population as learning disabled

(Fletcher et al., 1994; Rourke & Finlayson, 1978; Shaywitz

et al., 1990). Second, in this author’s experience, this score

is correlated with teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of chil-

dren’s problems in school and with the self-report of adults

who report academic difficulties. Thus, the use of the 25th

percentile as a cutoff score is correlated with observations in

the real world. However, there is no way of knowing what is

a valid cutoff score; there is no magic number to separate

learning-disabled from non-learning-disabled individuals.

An argument could just as easily be made for the 20th per-

centile or the 15th percentile instead of the 25th percentile.

No blood test, X ray, or magnetic imaging technique can be

used to diagnose a learning disability. However, for the edu-

cational system to identify who will receive the accommo-

dations and remediation, we must take a continuous

variable—for example, reading performance—and make it a

dichotomous one.

A Simple Model

In this field there are issues of what constitutes appropriate

assessment for learning disabilities. It certainly is the tradi-

tion to do extensive additional testing besides achievement

testing. However, the usefulness of additional testing for the

identification of learning disabilities is not clear. It is likely

that the primary reasons for doing assessments are to docu-

ment the existence of a learning disability and to recommend

appropriate remediation and accommodations. In order to

accomplish these aims, the achievement testing described

previously is clearly needed. Typically, tests of cognitive

processes and intelligence tests are included in many assess-

ments. Do we really need tests of auditory memory, visual

memory, language, and visual closure? Is there such an entity

as auditory memory? Suppose the stimuli for an auditory

memory task are words and the individual is asked to repeat

them, or suppose they are musical phrases or melodies and

the person is asked to discriminate them. Would conclusions

about auditory memory be the same if these diverse stimuli

were used? The question should always be How does the task

or test being used in the assessment relate to the determina-

tion of the learning disability and the provision of remedia-

tion or accommodations? Of course, the individual may be

interested in learning more about his or her strengths and

weaknesses. An extended assessment may also be valid for

these reasons. However, it is not necessary to define the

learning disability to propose accommodations or remedial

strategies.

Remediation and Accommodation

479

Surber (1985) has summarized the problems with lengthy

and detailed reports that include measures of cognitive

processes and intelligence tests: 

At the opposite end of the continuum, some of the more lengthy

reports include every detail of the evaluation process, whether

relevant or not. Both novice and experienced readers are left to

wade through the jargon, attempting to ferret out the key ele-

ments that have relevance for the student and the teacher in the

classroom. Consequently, items of greatest relevance become

diluted in the sea of information being washed ashore. (p. 162)

There were a number of problems with the assessments of

learning disability. The evaluations that I have seen have re-

sembled a patchwork quilt in which none of the squares were

the same. Each evaluation uses different tests, different ter-

minology, and different labels for the learning disability.

Here are some examples of the types of learning disabili-

ties that were reported to exist: language-based learning dis-

ability, subtle verbal processing, attentional and long-term

memory limitations, difficulty in visual processing speed,

statistically significant disparity between relative conceptual

language strengths compared with mathematics and written

output, slow processing speed, visuoperceptual processing

inefficiencies, problems with the ability to process auditory

and visual information, mild frontal lobe disorder, and poor

auditory processing.

The process of assessing whether there is a learning dis-

ability has been made unnecessarily complex. Standardized

tests of reading, spelling, arithmetic calculation, and mathe-

matical problem solving as described earlier are essential.

Obtaining a sample of writing is important. Other tests may

be done for interest or research but they are not essential to

the diagnosis of a learning disability.

In addition to the achievement tests discussed earlier, an

important part of any assessment is the use of analyses of

errors. Systematic analyses of errors may provide useful

information about an individual’s level of functioning in

reading, spelling, and arithmetic, and they may provide infor-

mation about appropriate accommodations. Numerous stud-

ies such as those of Barwick and Siegel (1996); Bruck and

Waters (1988); Fowler, Shankweiler, and Liberman (1979);

Guthrie and Siefert (1977); Lennox and Siegel (1993, 1996);

McBride and Siegel (1997); Pennington et al. (1986); Sieden-

berg (1985); Smiley, Pascquale, and Chandler, (1976);

Sprenger-Charolles and Siegel (1997); Tal and Siegel (1996);

Weber (1970); Venezky and Johnson (1973); and Werker,

Bryson, and Wassenberg (1989) have used analyses of errors

as a means to understanding the nature of the difficulties in

individuals with learning disabilities. A good assessment

should systematically analyze the errors made by individuals.

Error analysis also provides some information about the

types of questions the individual was able to answer cor-

rectly. For example, are the spelling errors good phonological

equivalents of the word to be spelled (e.g., nature spelled as

nachure)? Or are they good visual errors—that is, a close

match to the visual form of the word (e.g., nature written as

natur; e.g., Lennox & Siegel, 1993, 1996)? Analyses such as

these help us understand the strategies that the individual is

using and can provide guidelines for remediation.

Finally, an assessment should include a direct interview

with the student to analyze strengths as well as weaknesses

not detected by achievement tests. Many individuals with

learning disabilities have talents in the areas of art, dancing,

mechanics, music, sports, or any combination of these. For

example, both Agatha Christie and W. B. Yeats had learning

disabilities (Miner & Siegel, 1992; Siegel, 1988a) that can

be documented but obviously were individuals with consid-

erable talent. The recognition of these strengths is important

to the development of educational strategies and to the self-

esteem of the individual with learning disabilities (e.g., Vail,

1990).

REMEDIATION AND ACCOMMODATION

The following list includes some remedial techniques that are

useful for helping individuals with learning disabilities.

For children, the following remedial measures are recom-

mended for learning difficulties:

• To enhance word recognition skills, a word-family

approach to draw attention to common word patterns (e.g.,

cat, bat, sat, hat that, fat, rat, mat) can be used.

• Talking books, books, or both can be used.

• Textbooks on tape should be provided if possible.

• The use of high-interest, low-vocabulary books.

• The use of procedures such as cloze tasks to improve the

understanding of syntax.

• The use of a language experience approach—allowing the

dictation of stories and then using the words from these

stories as the basis for reading vocabulary.

• The use of a calculator should be considered to help with

arithmetic facts and multiplication tables. 

• The use of a computer (word processor) is encouraged;

this may help improve the quality of written work. Using

a computer spell check often and early in the writing

process will ensure that the student sees correct spellings

of words to enhance knowledge of common word

patterns.

480

Learning Disabilities

• Consideration should be given to the use of a tape recorder

for projects, book reports, and so on, allowing the teacher

to hear the quality of the ideas without relying on the

written products.

• Copying from the blackboard is difficult; alternatives

should be considered. For example, class handouts, photo-

copying other students’ notes, or tape recording oral

lessons may be an option.

The following additional recommendations should be con-

sidered for adults:

• Teaching metacognitive strategies to help individuals with

learning disabilities enhances their learning (for a detailed

discussion, see, e.g., Butler, 1995, 1998; Montague,

1997).

• Encouragement of self-monitoring strategies to organize

information and to avoid confusion when doing more than

one activity. Strategies could include drawing plans or

making lists to follow sequential steps from a manual or

verbal instructions.

• A literacy program and basic skills training in reading and

arithmetic is a possibility for some individuals functioning

at a very low level.

• Teaching people with learning disorders to make it clear

when they do not understand is important. Even asking the

person what they mean or to repeat the instructions in a

different way may be helpful.

• If they have difficulty understanding, training people to

ask the person to repeat the instructions in a different way

can be helpful.

• Textbooks on tape should be provided.

• Tape recording of lectures should be allowed and encour-

aged if the instructor is willing to give permission. Con-

sideration should be given to the use of a tape recorder for

projects, reports, and so on; this would allow the teacher

to hear the quality of the ideas without relying on the writ-

ten products.

• If acceptable to the instructor, answers to essay questions

should be completed in point form. Consideration should

be given to a similar format for class assignments.

• Because of spelling difficulties, consideration should be

given to not reducing grades for spelling errors. 

• If possible, use a computer (word processor) for written

work. This may help improve the quality of written work.

Using a computer spell check often and early in the writing

process will ensure that you see correct spellings of words

to enhance your knowledge of common word patterns.

• Copying from the blackboard is difficult; alternatives

should be considered. For example, class handouts, photo-

copying other students’ notes, or tape recording oral

lessons may be an option.

• Alternate modes of examination (e.g., oral exams) may be

considered.

CONCLUSION

Until the field of learning disabilities resolves the definitional

issues, significant progress will not be made. We must exam-

ine our basic concepts about the nature of learning disabilities

and our current practices. Specific and clear operational defi-

nitions will help the field advance. However, this resolution

will not happen automatically. It will take a concerted effort

by the field.

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G. (1991). Can reading disabilities be diagnosed without

using intelligence tests? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24,

178–186.

Arnold, L. E., Smeltzer, D. J., & Barneby, N. S. (1981). Specific

perceptual remediation: Effects related to sex, IQ, and parents’

occupational status; behavioral change pattern by scale factors;

and mechanism of benefit hypothesis tested. Psychological

Reports, 49, 198.

Backman, J., Bruck, M., Hebert, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1984).

Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in read-

ing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 114–133.

Barwick, M. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1996). Learning difficulties in

adolescent clients of a shelter for runaway and homeless street

youths. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 649–670.

Bateman, B. (1968–1969). “Clinically” obtained IQs versus “pro-

duction line” IQs in a mentally retarded sample. Journal of

School Psychology, 7, 29–33.

Benton, A. L., & Pearl, D. (Eds.). (1978). Dyslexia: An appraisal of

current knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Berninger, V. (1994). Future directions for research on writing

disabilities: Integrating endogenous and exogenous variables.

In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment

of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues

(pp. 419– 440). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Boder, E. (1968). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening

procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and

spelling. Claremont College Reading Conference, 32, 173–187.

Boder, E. (1971). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening

procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and

References

481

spelling. In B. C. Bateman (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 4,

pp. 298–342). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.

Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach

based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental

Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663–687.

Boder, E., & Jarrico, S. (1986). Boder Test of Reading-Spelling

Patterns. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Brown, W. S., Marsh, J. T., & Smith, J. C. (1973). Contextual mean-

ing effects on speech-evoked potentials. Behavioral Biology, 9,

755–761.

Bruck, M. (1988). The word recognition and spelling of dyslexic

children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 51–69.

Bruck, M. (1990). Word-recognition skills of adults with childhood

diagnosis of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 26, 439–454.

Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness

deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874 –886.

Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of

children who differ in their reading and spelling skills. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 9, 77–92.

Bryant, B. R., & Brown, L. (1985). A critical review of four mea-

sures of paragraph reading. Remedial and Special Education,

6(2), 52–55.

Butler, D. L. (1995). Promoting strategic learning by postsecondary

students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabili-

ties, 28, 170–190.

Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to pro-

moting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 90, 682–697.

Calfee, R. C., Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, C. (1973). Acoustic-

phonetic skills and reading: Kindergarten through twelfth grade.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 293–298.

Camp, B. W., & Dolcourt, J. L. (1977). Reading and spelling in good

and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 300–307.

Cruickshank, W. M. (1981). A new perspective in teacher education:

The neuroeducator. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 337–

341.

Cruickshank, W. W. (1972). Some issues facing the field of learning

disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 380–388.

Daneman, M. (1984). Acquiring vocabulary knowledge from text.

Paper presented at the Second Meeting of Reading Researchers,

University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 

Denckla, M. B., Rudel, R. G., & Broman, M. (1981). Tests that

discriminate between dyslexic and other learning-disabled boys.

Brain and Language, 13, 118–129.

Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-

risk students: Not a simple matter. Elementary School Journal,

94, 153–167.

Doehring, D. G. (1984). Subtyping of disorders: Implications for

remediation. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 205–216.

Doehring, D. G., & Hoshko, I. M. (1977). Classification of reading

problems by the Q-technique of factor analysis. Cortex, 13, 281–

294.

Doehring, D. G., Hoshko, I. M., & Bryans, B. N. (1979). Statistical

classification of children with reading problems. Journal of Clin-

ical Neuropsychology, 1, 5–16.

Doehring, D. G., Trites, R. L., Patel, P. G., & Fiedorowicz, C. A. M.

(1981). Reading disabilities: The interaction of reading, lan-

guage, and neuropsychological deficits. New York: Academic

Press.

Drum, P. A., Calfee, R. C., & Cook, L. K. (1981). The effects of

sentence structure variables on performance in reading compre-

hension tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486–514.

Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of word identifica-

tion speed in skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 75, 3–18.

Elbro, C., Neilsen, I., & Petersen, D. K., (1994). Dyslexia in adults:

Evidence for deficits in non word reading and in the phonological

representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205–226.

Elliot, S. N., & Boeve, K. (1987). Stability of WISC-R IQs: An

investigation of ethnic differences over time. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 47, 461– 465.

Ellis, A. (1985). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental

(and acquired) dyslexia: A critical survey. Cognitive Neuropsy-

chology, 2, 169–205.

Ellis, N., & Large, B. (1987). The development of reading. As you

seek so shall you find. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 1–28.

Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1985). An analysis of the

conceptual framework underlying definitions of learning disabil-

ities. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 133–144.

Feagans, L., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). Validation of language

subtypes in learning disabled children. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 78, 358–364.

Federal Register. (1977). The rules and regulations for implement-

ing Public Law 94–142. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Felton, R. H., Naylor, C. E., & Wood, F. B. (1990). Neuropsycholog-

ical profile of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language, 39, 485– 497.

Felton, R. H., & Wood, F. (1991). A reading level match study of

nonword reading skills in poor readers with varying IQ. Journal

of Learning Disabilities, 25, 318–326.

Fisk, J. L., & Rourke, B. P. (1979). Identification of subtypes of

learning-disabled children at three age levels: A neuropsycho-

logical, multivariate approach. Journal of Clinical Neuropsy-

chology, 1, 289–310.

Fisk, J. L., & Rourke, B. P. (1983). Neuropsychological subtyping

of learning-disabled children: History, methods, implications.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 529–531.

Fletcher, J. M. (1985a). External validity of learning disability sub-

types. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning

disabilities: Essentials of subtype analyses (pp. 187–211). New

York: Guilford Press.

Fletcher, J. M. (1985b). Memory for verbal and nonverbal stimuli in

learning disability subgroups: Analysis by selective reminders.

Journal of Educational Child Psychology, 40, 244 –259.