See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358139535

Learning Disabilities From Assessment to Intervention Edited by Maria

Tzouriadou and Sotiria Tzivinikou

Book · January 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,434

6 authors, including:

Maria Tzouriadou Sotiria Tzivinikou

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki University of Thessaly
15 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 236 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Constantinos Vouyoukas Eleni Anagnostopoulou

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
31 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sotiria Tzivinikou on 27 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Learning Disabilities
Learning Disabilities:

From Assessment
to Intervention

Edited by

Maria Tzouriadou and Sotiria Tzivinikou

Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention

Edited by Maria Tzouriadou and Sotiria Tzivinikou

This book first published 2022

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2022 by Maria Tzouriadou, Sotiria Tzivinikou

and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-7611-6

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-7611-7
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Maria Tzouriadou and Sotiria Tzivinikou

Chapter One ............................................................................................... 20

Learning Disabilities: An Ambiguous Category
Maria Tzouriadou

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 38

Assessment and Learning Disabilities
Maria Tzouriadou

Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 74

Assessment of Academic Achievement and Learning Disabilities
Constantinos Vouyoukas

Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 100

Response to Intervention (RtI) for Assessment and Intervention
for Learning Disabilities
Sotiria Tzivinikou

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 131

Dynamic Assessment in the Assessment and Intervention of Learning
Disabilities
Eleni Bonti

Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 156

Remedial Intervention Programmes for Learning Disabilities
Eleni Anagnostopoulou

Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 168

Contemporary Intervention Approaches for Learning Disabled Students
Maria Tzouriadou and Eleni Anagnostopoulou
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 198

Inclusive Education for Learning Disabled Students: Differentiated
Instruction
Maria Tzouriadou and Eleni Anagnostopoulou

Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 217

Specific Learning Disabilities in Students from Diverse Backgrounds:
Discussing Disproportionality Issues
Lito E. Michalopoulou

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 229

Differentiating Difference from Disability in the SLD Assessment
of Diverse Students
Lito E. Michalopoulou
 INTRODUCTION

MARIA TZOURIADOU
AND SOTIRIA TZIVINIKOU

The “phenomenon” of learning disabilities (LDs) has been attracting the

attention of interdisciplinary researchers and professionals for more than
100 years. Numerous empirical researches have been conducted in order to
identify learning disabilities and provide an answer to two crucial
questions: what are learning disabilities and why do they occur? The need
to create a specific category for LDs is based on two key parameters.
Firstly, on the nature of special problems in speech and reading as a result
of brain dysfunction, and, secondly, on the construct of special education
as an independent field among educational policies. The identification of
any given category is reflected in its definition. This constitutes a scientific
process, which integrates representing terminology and the key elements
that scientifically differentiate it from other disability categories, leading
to the formulation of a conceptual definition, which must be precise, valid
and reliable. The first attempt to formally identify LDs as an independent
scientific entity was made about 60 years ago, with the first definition
(1968)* by Samuel Kirk; to this day, though, there is no consensus on the
nature and roots of the disorder. The failure to reach consensus has been
the source of controversy, debate and doubt (Keogh, 1988). Although the
field met unexpected growth in the years that followed and significantly
affected special education, it remains among the most problematic
categories due to the ambiguity regarding its identification (Mather &
Roberts, 1994).

Historical Review
In order to understand LDs, along with the contradictions and dissent
around them, but also for the purpose of advancing research, we shall refer
to the major currents that have historically shaped the field from the first
case reports of the 17th century until today. The earliest mentions were
made by Schmidt, who was a Prussian doctor; he reported the case of an
2 Introduction

adult who had lost the ability to read after a stroke, but had maintained the
ability to spell correctly. However, the first reports that were made by
doctors (biomedical orientation) concerned patients with intra-individual
strengths and weaknesses, including deficits in linguistic, reading and
cognitive abilities. To cite just one example, Broca (1865) provided the
basis of specificity in the nature of LDs by attributing them to damages to
the left hemisphere. Respectively, Wernicke (1894) introduced the concept
of the disconnection syndrome in the areas of speech, which resulted from
motor difficulties in speech due to damage to the left hemisphere. Towards
the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, more cases of
unexpected cognitive and language difficulties were added to the context
of otherwise normal functioning. It has actually been reported that those
cases were one-of-a-kind, because they did not appear to have the same
neurological characteristics as acquired speech disorders. Kussmaul (1877)
described the case of a patient who was unable to read, despite possessing
adequate mental and perceptual skills. Moreover, the case reports by
Hinshelwood (1895), Morgan (1896) and others identified a specific type
of learning disability, characterised by the “inability to read”, despite
normal intelligence and adequate learning opportunities. Hinshelwood, an
ophthalmologist from Glasgow, was the first to begin collecting data on
cases of acquired and congenital word blindness in children from the late
1880s until the beginning of the 20th century, which were later published
in his classical book “Congenital Word Blindness” in 1917. Hinshelwood
emphasised the innate or traumatic nature of reading difficulties, as well as
the relation between visual memory and reading. He also referred to the
peculiarity of mathematical skills, which he associated with memory. He
claimed that those children were able to recognise letters and shapes, but
not words. They were able to copy written material, because this is a
process that does not involve memory. Their problem was related to visual
memory only, while their acoustic memory as well as their mental function
remained intact. He also mentioned that those children exhibited reading
difficulties without having a history of acquired brain damage or disease.
However, he did not specify in which case and to which degree of severity
one can claim the existence of disorder. On the contrary, he argued that
children with such difficulties are unable to learn with classical teaching
methods, but rather need to be treated as trainable mentally retarded (MR)
(Kavale & Forness, 1985). He attributed these difficulties to developmental
damage or “agenesis” presented during the first stages of foetal development
in the angular gyrus of the dominant hemisphere. The importance of his
contribution is that he made a distinction between LDs and MR.
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 3

In the beginning of the 20th century, evidence from various sources helped
to identify a unique type of learning disability with specific rather than
general characteristics, which was not associated with sensory impairment
and mental retardation. Hynd and Willis (1988) summarised five key
characteristics of these difficulties, namely: (1) children’s difficulties
present inherent learning problems, (2) they affect more boys rather than
girls, (3) they are diversely manifested in relation to the profiles and the
severity of the deficits, (4) they are associated with developmental processes
occurring mainly in the left cerebral hemisphere and in the centre of
speech, and (5) formal classroom instruction is not sufficient to meet the
educational needs of children with these difficulties.

During the 1920s, Samuel Orton extended the study of reading difficulties
with clinical trials that he designed in order to test the hypothesis that
reading impairment is associated with problems caused by the dominance
of the left hemisphere, which is responsible for language functions. He
limited himself to the characteristics of the reversals of symbols, letters and
words, and introduced the term “strephosymbolia” (Orton, 1928). Orton
distinguished five main types of these disorders: developmental alexia,
developmental agraphia, developmental word deafness or developmental
aphasia, developmental expressive aphasia and developmental apraxia. He
attributed those disorders to difficulties in the visual-coordinating domain
of cerebral function, appearing mostly among left-handed rather than
right-handed people (Farnham-Diggory, 1992; Lachmann & Geyer, 2003;
Thomson, 1978). Orton’s theory, however, did not stand the test of time,
even though his work influenced research and motivated groups of
teachers and parents to place emphasis upon reading difficulties and other
learning disabilities. Thus, instructional techniques were developed to treat
children with reading disabilities. Orton’s influence on the modern
conceptualisations of LDs was indirect and impacted the classification of
speech disorders and motor disabilities (Doris, 1993). Moreover, Orton
(1937) was the first to claim that reading disabilities presented at a
symbolic level appeared to be associated with cerebral dysfunction rather
than cerebral lesions, as argued by Hinshelwood and other researchers, and
could be identified in children with intelligence ranging from average to
above average.

Even though Orton’s contribution was important for the scientific and
clinical research in reading disabilities, it was the work of Strauss and
Werner (1943) and other colleagues (Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947) during the
period after World War II that raised the status of the generic category of
LDs to that of an independent field (Rutter, 1982; Torgesen, 1991). Strauss
4 Introduction

and Werner attempted to understand the difficulties in the behaviour of

children described as hyperactive. In a series of clinical observations, they
identified over-activity, impulsivity and concrete thinking as a result of
cerebral damage, without any physical evidence of disorder in the
neurological system. They also expanded their research on children with
intellectual disabilities (ID), especially on children whose deficiency was
associated to brain damage, albeit not attributed to neurological impairment,
but to familial causes. They found out that those children exhibited
difficulties in figure-ground perception and attention tasks that also led to
hyperactivity. However, they also noted that there were children without
brain damage who had ID and functioned in a similar way. Finally, in the
course of their research, they identified children with average intelligence
and a corresponding behaviour and performance pattern, who manifested
behavioural and learning difficulties. They attributed the problems of all
those children to a syndrome that they called “minimal brain dysfunction”.
The above positions were adopted by the first edition of the American
Psychiatric Association’s manual, DSM. In the first edition DSM-I (1952),
reference is made to a category of chronic cerebral syndromes of unknown
causes with major behavioural manifestations, which today are identified
as Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity-Disorder (ADHD). In the 1968 edition
of DSM-II, this category was called “mild brain damage” for cases that
originated in unapparent organ damage, and many children with this
disorder presented poor academic performance. Actually, it took 50 years
of studies in the category of minimal brain dysfunction before it began to
include children with average or above-average general intelligence
exhibiting learning or behavioural difficulties associated with deviations in
the CNS (Clements, 1966). What was also recognised, was the heterogeneity
of these children and their failure to respond to the same intervention for
all (“one size fits all”). The Straussian movement had an important impact
on the development of the LD field (Hammill, 1993; Kavale & Forness,
1985); and it was summarised in three emerging concepts that formed a
distinct field in education. The three concepts were the following: (1)
individual differences in learning can be understood by examining the
different ways these children approach learning tasks, (2) educational
processes must be adapted to the standards of the processing strengths and
weaknesses of the individual child, and (3) children with deficits in
learning processes can be facilitated to learn by the use of teaching
methods focusing on processing strengths rather than weaknesses.

In 1985, Kavale and Forness extended these three concepts by adding that:
(1) the focus of a learning disability affecting an individual represents a
medical model (disease), (2) LDs are connected (or attributed) to neurological
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 5

dysfunction, (3) academic achievement deficits observed in children are

linked to deficits in the psychological processing and mainly in the
perceptual-motor area, (4) the failure of children with LDs may exist
regardless of their intelligence, which may be average or above average,
and (5) LDs are not primarily caused by other conditions of deficiency.

Ever since the 1960s, the study of LDs in the U.S. included scientists and
professionals from the field of behavioural sciences, and mainly psychology
and pedagogy, who focused on cognitive or linguistic models that were
associated with obvious learning disabilities and contributed to the
assessment and the educational interventions needed for treating these
children. Notable researchers of this approach include Cruickshank,
Myklebust, Johnson and Kirk, who studied the psychological and cognitive
basis of LDs, in order to establish approaches for their treatment or
management. Kirk claimed that LDs form a broad category of written
speech disabilities, which includes reading difficulties––dyslexia,
mathematical difficulties ––dyscalculia, and writing difficulties––dysgraphia.
Finally, he made a distinction between these difficulties and other
developmental dysfunctions like ID, as well as disabilities caused by
adverse conditions, and he suggested the use of the term LD (1963). Based
on these studies, the first official definition was formulated by the United
States Office of Education (1968). This definition linked minimal brain
dysfunction to the criterion of unexpected low performance among the
exclusion criteria, meaning that unexpected low performance was not
primarily attributed to MR, sensory impairments, cultural and language
diverse backgrounds or low socioeconomic status. Despite the fact that it
specified the exclusion criteria, it did not provide clear inclusion criteria
for unexpected low performance. We must understand that the official
definition of 1968, which remains unchanged to date, is vague and hardly
functional, such as “The term specific learning disability means a disorder
in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may
manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or
to do mathematic calculations”. Since 1968, the separate field of LDs
began to acquire a formal term status, as a special difficulty entitled to
civil rights and the provision of special services with specialised
educational interventions, not for purposes of identification, but with the
aim of supporting children at school. In order to achieve those goals,
changes were proposed on the classroom environment, such as with the
elimination of stimuli, based on the assumption that anything distracting
children must be altered because it affects learning. Moreover, numerous
studies were conducted regarding the different types of speech and
6 Introduction

perception deficits affecting academic and social learning among children.

Intervention programmes were also developed for the treatment of deficits
in abilities linked to academic learning difficulties (Johnson, & Myklebust,
1967). Both educational and health services initially defined LDs more on
the basis of service provision rather than systematic scientific research.
The diagnostic conceptualisation of LDs gained ground in the 1960s and
1970s, thus multiplying the children that were diagnosed during those two
decades (Zigmond, 1993). The term LD was not causing stigma. Parents
and teachers felt more at ease with this term, because children with LDs
were thought to have disabilities in learning despite their normal
intelligence and adaptive behaviour, intact hearing and vision, as well as
good emotional state. The fact that children were considered to have
normal intelligence sparked hope among parents and teachers that their
difficulties could be overcome with the provision of appropriate teaching
methods. Thus, the field started to turn to enhance clinical observation and
provision of special services.

In 1977, the U.S. Office of Education, among adjustments of the definition

of LDs, included the concept of high IQ-low performance discrepancy as
an inclusion criterion. This discrepancy was considered as a sign for the
unexpected under-performance, and it affected education policy and LD
practices not only in the U.S., but on an international level. To this day,
this discrepancy is still considered to be key for the identification of
difficulties by many institutions around the world, and it is included in
IDEA of 2004. The single inclusion criterion concerned the following
manifestation areas “... a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability in one or more of the areas: (1) oral expression; (2)
listening comprehension; (3) written expression; (4) basic reading skill; (5)
reading comprehension; (6) mathematics calculation; or (7) mathematical
reasoning” (United States Office of Education, 1977, p. G1082).
Notwithstanding disagreements on the reliability and validity of the
discrepancy criterion, for the next 30 years this definition prevailed and
the construct of LDs became aligned with the ability–performance
discrepancy, despite contrary evidence and measurement issues that were
not given serious consideration. It was only in DSM-5 (2013) that this
approach was challenged as evidence-lacking, and philosophical and
technical disagreements were expressed regarding this concept (Fletcher,
Lyon, Fuchs & Barnes, 2019).

In the IDEA 2004 statute, RtI was introduced as an alternative inclusion

criterion, according to which LDs represent an inadequate response to
adequate instruction. RtI is a means of monitoring a child’s progress in
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 7

evidence-based instruction, through which low performance or under-

performance emerges as the main characteristic of children in school
reality; this is because in the formal definitions, LDs are defined on the
basis of what they are not, with a focus on exclusion factors. Since the
revision of the definition in 2004 and the issuing of circulars, various
school districts in the U.S. started to implement inclusion-based LD
identification models, which also included the RtI-based model. According
to this, a child is considered to have LDs when not making sufficient
progress to meet age, state-approved, grade-level standards in one or more
of the 7 areas of achievement that were proposed in the 1977 revision, and
later in the area of reading fluency, despite the fact that scientific
evidence-based interventions are used (Fletcher, 2009). So, today the
criterion of IQ-performance discrepancy has prevailed in the U.S., while
districts with special permits may implement the RtI criterion or a
combination of both criteria. Usually, when LDs are identified on the basis
of the two criteria, the assessment must include areas in which children
could potentially exhibit low performance, as a different inclusion criterion.

Summarising the review, the field of LDs has historically emerged from
studies by physicians, mainly neurologists, as an undetectable central
nervous system (CNS) disorder, which was initially identified with
minimal brain dysfunction or damage. It has officially formed a diagnostic
category that has attracted the interest of clinical practice and educational
policy since the 1960s, mainly by parents, educators and other children’s
advocates who have dealt with this category as a separate case of special
education (Lyon & Moats, 1997). The advocacy groups that implemented
the educational reforms legitimised the concept of LDs and assisted in
systematic research that may continue to support definition elements. This
might have led to the dissemination of an ineffective, but research-based
definition and intervention practices (Fletcher et al., 2003). These practices
could potentially improve adverse long-term effects that are often
associated with LDs (Bruck, 1987; Spreen, 1989). However, only during
the last 30 years have there been systematic research attempts to understand
the causes, the developmental course, the treatment conditions and the
long-term effects of LDs. In spite of systematic research progress, these
attempts have not led to a more precise definition and intervention
methods. In the IDEA 2004 revision, it was confirmed that policies and
practices must be based on corroborative scientific evidence. The revision
of the historically unfounded hypotheses about LDs, which collapsed after
careful scientific scrutiny, may have been hampered by what we have
learned from significant research advances. Research on substantiated
identification so far is based not only on the exclusion criteria proposed by
8 Introduction

the international official definitions, but also on the inclusion criterion,

that is the common feature of low performance or under-performance
proposed by the RtI approach. The formal integration of RtI models into
the 2004 revision marked a major change as it enabled schools and
services to use it in order to include special education students in the
category of LDs and to develop effective educational interventions. This
significant change has an impact on the scientific basis of understanding,
identification and intervention regarding LDs. To achieve this, we must
become aware of the changes that will affect the accuracy and usefulness
of diagnostic decisions. Moreover, studies so far have been based mainly
on the problem’s phenomenology, whilst the attempt of fundamental
research began only recently and mainly from the cognitive neuropsychology
point of view, not yet leading to valid and reliable results.

Identification Difficulties in the Field of LDs

To date, the failure to identify and formulate a commonly accepted
definition for LDs, but also the difficulty of universally using a single
term, means that the category of LDs lacks two basic elements, which, as
mentioned above, concern the nature of the problem and the interpretation
of why a student has LDs. In the absence of these two elements, the
scientific positions for LDs remain unsubstantiated and lead to a lack of
consensus on how the category should be better identified (Doris, 1993).
In the case of LDs, some concepts are axiomatic, that is they are
interconnected in a fixed form, such as ability-performance, and, while
this connection seems logical, the scientists who use these concepts may
assign their own meaning to them (Kavale & Forness, 1985). Kavale and
Nye (1986) had argued that such terms and definitions lack coherence,
because a complex, multi-factorial phenomenon like LDs, involving
neuropsychological, behavioural and academic achievement factors,
includes 38 parameters, from which it is impossible to single out a
dominant one. Additionally, the prevailing term LDs is chaotic and
confusing, while terms such as retardation, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia, and so forth are being used in the same sense. This “chaos”
stems from the ambiguity of definitions and the general “laxity” in the use
of terms, but it may also be caused by the very nature of learning
disabilities (Kranzler et al., 2019).

LDs can be understood on the basis of two different approaches. One

approach interprets them in a broad sense, which has prevailed among
some groups of mainly professionals such as educators, while the second
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 9

approach interprets them in a more limited sense, which has prevailed

mainly among researchers. The first one concerns children and adolescents
with general learning disabilities and borderline or below average IQ, but
without mental retardation. A lot of times, the terms “slow learners” or
“learning difficulties” are used in association with those children, because
they do not make curriculum-based progress in areas that cover language,
literacy and numeracy. Their problems could be related to one cognitive
object or permeate all cognitive objects. Their main feature is that these
children have difficulty in acquiring concepts at the same pace and depth
of understanding as their peers (Shaw, 2010). These students are not easily
identified at school and, therefore, the percentages vary from school to
school by 12-30% of the student population (Butterworth & Kovas, 2013;
Silver & Hagin, 2002; Westwood & Graham, 2000). Students with such
problems are common in schools and, because of their diversity, they have
been described as “garden variety LDs”. They often present disproportionate
percentages of low socioeconomic backgrounds, disadvantaged or cultural
and language diverse environments. The broad approach is based on
under-performance, which essentially means that those children do not
perform academically as well as their innate potential should allow, as
evidenced by intelligence tests. Many objections have been raised in the
past regarding this position (Rutter & Yule, 1975), because intelligence
tests provide a sample of behaviour that covers a range of skills which is
independent of school. For this reason, it must be studied in relation to
under-performance in reading and mathematical skills acquired through
education and practice. IQ could be an indicative factor, because it is
associated with reasoning skills upon which school learning is built. The
learning disabilities that children exhibit at school can be caused by a
combination of endogenous and environmental factors (MacMillan &
Siperstein, 2002; Westwood, 2003), such as: inadequate or inappropriate
instruction, inappropriate curriculum, socioeconomically adverse conditions,
health problems, and so forth. Teachers usually blame low motivation or
non-supportive families for the children’s difficulties. Henderson (2002)
refers to this attitude of teachers as deficit discourse, while Bearne (1996)
had argued that the “blame-the-victim-perspective” could negatively
influence the teachers’ practices. Finally, McLaren (2003, p. 236) refers to
“psychologizing failure”, as failure attributed to psychological factors,
such as lack of motivation and low self-esteem, which protects teachers
and the school environment from negative criticism.

The second approach interprets LDs in a limited sense concerning a very

small subset of students with average or above average intelligence,
without any other obvious problems either inherent or environmental. The
10 Introduction

terms LDs or special LDs have been used for these students, in order to
distinguish them from the diversity of other disorders. In the U.S., a
percentage of 5-6% of the student population is reported, while in other
countries this quote is lower (Gorker, 2019; Grigorenko et al., 2020). LDs,
in the limited sense of the term, reflect children and adolescents who
exhibit unexpected under-performance. These children face difficulties in
some but not all areas of academic performance (reading, writing,
mathematics), despite adequate teaching opportunities, motivation and
cognitive ability. This is the narrow conceptualisation that Kirk had in
mind when he introduced the term LDs (Kirk, 1963). Kirk (1977) also
referred to a discrepancy between a child’s achievement and his apparent
capacity to learn as indicated by aptitude tests, verbal understanding, and
arithmetic computation. Thus, they attempted to operationalise the
learning ability based on the general IQ. According to this method, also
known as the method of IQ-performance discrepancy, a student can join
the category of LDs when the level and rate of acquisition in a particular
area of school learning are significantly lower than expected based on the
IQ. Kirk, finally, introduced exclusion criteria such as MR, sensory
impairment, cultural or instructional factors. These factors are part of the
approach of severe ability-performance discrepancy.

Based on the above views, the “special” LDs were officially recognised in
1968 as a deficiency in the U.S. (Donovan & Cross, 2002; President’s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). LDs are a very
common disorder and affect approximately 50% of all students receiving
special education services in the United States. In the academic year 2014-
15, 47% of all children and adolescents receiving special education services
in the U.S. were diagnosed with LDs (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2018). In other words, the increase of the percentages from 1975
to 2004 was over 100%. Despite this increase, LDs remained the least
understood and most controversial category of student-affecting impairment
(Bradley et al., 2002). Although these disabilities concern a single condition
of difficulties, it is scientifically established that they constitute a general
category, including disabilities in specific areas of learning (Kavale &
Forness, 2000; Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003). The diverse nature is
depicted with different types of difficulties in seven domains (see above,
p. 5). It has been argued that these difficulties often coexist with other
conditions of inadequacy, such as difficulties in social skills, behaviour or
attention (Fletcher et al., 1999). Although LDs have often been considered
as synonymous with reading difficulties or dyslexia, this is not the case,
even though the majority of children with LDs (80-90%) present reading
difficulties (Kavale & Reese, 1992; Lyon et al., 2001). Two out of five
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 11

students in the U.S. receiving special education services have difficulty

learning to read (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education, 2002).

The goal of understanding LDs is to provide the most effective instruction

in order to improve the characteristics of students’ difficulties. But,
according to researchers and professionals, there are difficulties in
understanding the nature, causes and parameters that must be taken into
account when instructing a child with LDs. Much progress has been made
in the field of LDs and, from simple interpretations focusing on the
phenotype of behaviour and cognitive characteristics, attempts have been
made to give more complex interpretations linking cognitive, neurobiological
and instructional factors. If a student is found to have LDs, but there is no
other information to expand teachers’ knowledge regarding instruction,
then the concept only makes sense for the administrative integration of
children with disabilities based on the formal definition. The complex
interpretations suggest that the field of LDs was developed to meet two
serious needs: firstly, the need to understand individual differences in the
learning and the performance of children with special difficulties in oral or
written speech, but without any problems in the adaptive functions; and
secondly, the need to provide special educational services.

The phenomenological research has so far shaped the terminology, the

definitions but also the controversy around LDs. In a review of the World
Federation of Neurology regarding dyslexia, Rutter (1978) stressed that if
all the causes of reading difficulties were known, then the term “unknown
aetiology” should be removed from the definitions. The essence of the LD
construct is the concept of unexpectedly low performance concerning a
population that cannot learn to read, write, and so forth, despite the
absence of any conditions that could technically hinder success.
Unfortunately, the measurement of unexpected performance has not been
successful, because it has resulted in heterogeneous subgroups, including
children of diverse cultural and language environments or low socioeconomic
backgrounds. The unexpected low performance is a construct that cannot
be measured in the likes of IQ. When the measurement is used simply to
rule out known causes, then the definition is void and inaccurate, and leads
to contradictions and impasses.

The book consists of the following chapters:

12 Introduction

Chapter 1. Learning disabilities: An ambiguous category

This chapter examines the epistemological ambiguities in the field of

learning disabilities. Different definitions of learning disabilities
(operational, technical, formal) are discussed. It is argued that the scientific
community seems to have difficulties in understanding the nature and
causes of learning disabilities; the relevant standpoints are put “into
question” or considered “unfounded”, which leads to the “identification
problem”: the lack of consensus on how to better define a classification
category for LD.

Chapter 2. Assessment and learning disabilities

The present chapter examines the aims of comprehensive assessment and

evaluation in the context of learning disabilities (discrepancy model,
curriculum-based assessment). It is argued that the aim of comprehensive
assessment and evaluation is to accurately determine the pattern of the
student’s needs and abilities. Tools and theoretical foundations for the
measuring of ability in the context of identifying learning disabilities are
described, based on non-theory-based tests, theory-based tests and new
assessment approaches for learning disabilities.

Chapter 3. Assessment of academic achievement and learning disabilities

In this chapter, the main methods in assessing academic achievement in

the context of learning disabilities are examined. The main approaches
employed for learning disabilities’ identification are discussed, in relation
to the use of the criterion of underachievement in the LD diagnosis.
Regardless of the approach used, it is argued that any evaluation of a child
for LDs must include a valid assessment of academic achievement.
Emphasis should be placed on strengthening the assessment validity of
students’ academic achievement and the accuracy of teachers’ judgements
regarding students’ achievement.

Chapter 4. Response to intervention for assessment and intervention of

learning disabilities

This chapter examines response to intervention (RtI), a model of prevention

and early intervention for learning and behavioural problems, which aims
to meet the educational needs of all students, including those with learning
difficulties or disabilities. It includes a network of assessments and
interventions implemented in a multi-tiered educational system, aiming at
improving academic achievement and addressing behavioural problems.
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 13

Despite the continuous and extensive research on the model, various

limitations are reflected upon the results.

Chapter 5: Dynamic assessment approaches for children with learning

difficulties: Advantages, limitations and instructional utility: An overview

This chapter sheds light on dynamic assessment models and approaches.

The origins and main principles underlying the theory and practical
applications of dynamic assessment techniques are examined. In addition,
an attempt is made to evaluate the nature and utility of the information
provided by dynamic assessment procedures, regarding the learning and
teaching processes of children with learning disabilities. The advantages
and limitations of dynamic assessment approaches are also being
considered. Finally, several practical applications of dynamic assessment
procedures are discussed with reference to intervention processes for
children with learning difficulties.

Chapter 6: Remedial intervention programmes for learning disabilities

This chapter examines the main principles and methods of the

educational interventions for children with learning disabilities. First, the
treatment system of language development is discussed, followed by a
description of treatment systems of psycholinguistic training. In addition,
the treatment systems of perceptual-motor development are analysed,
together with direct instruction interventions. It is argued that elements of
these educational interventions have been integrated into new interpretive
models and frameworks of treatment, which are based on the new
principles of knowledge and learning.

Chapter 7: Contemporary intervention approaches for learning disabled

students

This chapter examines the development of cognitive and metacognitive

approaches for the intervention of learning disabilities from the first
researches of university research institutes until the evidence-based
intervention programmes. The contribution of the institutes was the
emergence of two different approaches: the learning strategy programmes
and the curriculum-based interventions. Nowadays, evidence-based
interventions use both strategies and curriculum activities on a personalised
or inclusive level.
14 Introduction

Chapter 8: Inclusive education for learning disabled students:

differentiated instruction

The current chapter examines the main models and approaches of

differentiated instruction in the context of learning disabilities. Differentiated
instruction has proven to be an important tool for the implementation of
new approaches in the use of school curricula. It is argued that
differentiation is a responsive reaction to the individual needs of the
students. Differentiated instruction in children with learning disabilities is
based on modifying the content, process, and products and emphasises the
use of personalised instruction.

Chapter 9: Specific learning disabilities in students from diverse

backgrounds: Discussing disproportionality issues

The present chapter examines issues of special education disproportionality

in minoritised and culturally and linguistically diverse students. The
dimensions of under-representation and over-representation of culturally
and linguistically diverse students in special education are discussed,
alongside the disproportionality in specific learning disabilities’ identification.
Finally, the possible consequences of disproportionality for diverse
students are addressed.

Chapter 10: Differentiating difference from disability in specific learning

disabilities’ assessment of diverse students

This chapter examines current assessment practices with a focus on non-

discriminatory and equitable practices, which aim to address the
disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse
students identified with specific learning disabilities. Commonly used
assessment models of specific learning disabilities are described and
reviewed. In addition, guidelines for promoting fair and equitable practices
for dual language learners and other minoritised student populations are
being addressed. The overarching goal of the present chapter is to provide
practitioners and scholars with adequate information and knowledge in
order to be able to distinguish specific learning disabilities from cultural
and linguistic differences.
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 15

References
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (1st ed.). Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Author.
Bearne, E. (1996). Differentiation and diversity in the primary school.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203137833
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Brοca, P. M. P. (1865). Sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé.
Bulletins de la Société Anthropologque de Paris.
Bruck, M. (1987). The adult outcomes of children with learning
disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 7, 252–263.
Butterworth, B., & Kovas, Y. (2013). Understanding neurocognitive
developmental disorders can improve education for all. Science, 340,
300–305.
Clements, S. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children. NINDB
Monograph No. 3, PHS No. 1415. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and
gifted education. National Academy Press.
Doris, J. L. (1993). Defining learning disabilities: A history in search of
consensus. In R. Lyon, D. Gray, J. Kavanaugh, & N. Krasnegor (Eds.),
Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research
and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 97-116).
Brookes.
Farnham-Diggory, S. (1992). The learning disabled child. Harvard University
Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comorbidity of
learning and attention disorders: Separate but equal. Pediatric Clinics
of North America, 46, 885–897.
Fletcher, J. M., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2003). Classification and
definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L.
Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning
disabilities (pp. 30–56). The Guilford Press.
Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: JINS, 15(4),
501–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709090900
16 Introduction

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019).

Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.).
The Guilford Press.
Grigorenko, E., Compton, D., Fuchs, L., Wagner, R., Willicut, E., &
Fletcher, J. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children
with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice.
American Psychologist, 75(1) 37–51.
Görker, I. (2019). The prevalence and gender differences in specific
learning disorder [Online First], IntechOpen, https://doi.org/
10.5772/intechopen.90214
Hammill, D. D. (1993). A brief look at the learning disabilities movement
in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 295–310.
Henderson, R. W. (2002). Queensland Year 2 Diagnostic net and teachers’
explanations of literacy failure. Australian Journal of Education,
46(1), 50–64.
Hynd, G. W., & Willis, W. G. (1988). Pediatric neuropsychology. Grune
& Stratton.
Johnson, D. J., & Myklbust, H. (1967). Learning disabilities: Educational
principles and remedial approaches. Grune & Stratton.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1985). Learning disability and the history
of science: Paradigm or paradox? Remedial and Special Education, 6,
12–23.
Kavale, K. A., & Nye, C. (1985-1986). Parameters of learning disabilities
in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral
domains. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 443–458.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness S. R. 2000. What definitions of learning
disability say and don’t say: a critical analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300303
Kavale, K. A., & Reese, J. H. (1992). The character of learning
disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(2), 74–
94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511010
Keogh, B. K. (1988). improving services for problem learners: rethinking
and restructuring. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948802100104
Kirk, S. A. (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning
disabilities. In Conference on exploration into the problems of the
perceptually handicapped child (pp. 1–7). Fund for Perceptually
Handicapped Children.
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 17

Kirk, S. A. (1977). Specific learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Child

and Adolescent Psychology, 6(3), 23–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15374417709532776
Kranzler, J. H., Gilbert, K., Robert, C. R., Floyd, R. G., & Benson, N. F.
(2019). Further examination of a critical assumption underlying the
dual-discrepancy/consistency approach to specific learning disability
identification. School Psychology Review, 48, 207–221.
https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2018-0008.V48-3
Kussmaul, A. (1877). Disturbances of speech. In H. Von Ziemssien (Ed.),
Cyclopedia of the Practice of Medicine (pp. 581-875). William Wood
and Co.
Lachmann, T., & Geyer, T. (2003). Letter reversals in dyslexia: Is the case
really closed? A critical review and conclusions. Psychology Science,
45, 50–72.
Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and
methodological considerations in reading intervention research.
Journal of Learning Disabilities.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000601
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J.
K., Wood, F. B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning-
disabilities. In C. E. Finn Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr.
(Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (pp. 259-287).
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2003). Learning disabilities.
In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology, 520–
586. Guilford Press.
Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning disabilities: A field in danger
of extinction? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 49–
58.
McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy
in the foundations of education (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
McLaren, S. V. (2003). Achieving education for technological capability.
The Journal of Technology Studies, 29(1), 33–41.
McLaren, S. V. (2003a). Designing can be fun! or why Scottish
technology is failing to meet the national priority. In J. Dakers and M.
de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of PATT13 International Conference on
Design and Technology Education. Glasgow.
McLaren, S. V. (2003b). Achieving education for technological capability.
Journal of Technology Studies, 4(3), 253–260.
McLaren, S. V. (2003c). Are they getting enough? Preparing and
supporting teachers to teach technology education in Scottish primary
18 Introduction

schools. In J. Dakers and M. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of PATT13

International Conference on Design and Technology Education (pp.
159-164). Glasgow.
MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N., (2002). Learning disabilities as
operationally defined by schools. University of California, Riverside
University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Morgan, W. P. (1896). Congenital word blindness. British Medical
Journal, Nov. 28; 2(1874), 1612.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The condition of education.
Retrieved from:
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED583502.pdf
Orton, S. T. (1928). Specific reading disability. JAMA, 90(14), 1095–
1099. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1928.02690410007003
Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children. W.
W. Norton & Co.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002, July).
A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their
families. Retrieved from
http://www.ed/gov.inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/report
s.intro. html
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181–197.
Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal
of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 8, 139–161.
Rutter, M. (1982). Developmental neuropsychiatry: Concepts, issues, and
prospects. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4(2), 91–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638208401121
Silver, A., & Hagin, R. (2002). Disorders of learning in childhood (2nd
ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Spreen, O. (1989). Learning disability, neurology, and long-term outcome:
Some implications for the individual and for society. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(3), 389–408.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638908400900
Strauss, A. A., & Werner, H. (1943). Comparative psychopathology of the
brain-injured child, and the traumatic brain-injured adult. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 99 (6), 835–838.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.99.6.835
Strauss, A. A., & Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psychopathology and education
of the brain-injured child. Grune & Stratton.
 Learning Disabilities: From Assessment to Intervention 19

Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual

issues. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about Learning Disabilities
(pp. 3–37). Academic Press.
United States Office of Education. (1977). p. G1082.
Wernicke, K. (1894). Grundriss der Psychiatrie. Georg Thieme Verlag.
Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2000). How many children with special
needs in regular classes: Official predictions vs. teachers’ perceptions
in South Australia and New South Wales. Australian Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 24–35.
Westwood, P. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with special
educational needs: Strategies for the regular classroom. Routledge
Falmer.
Zigmond, N. (1993). Learning disabilities from an educational perspective.
In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. Kavanagh, & N. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better
understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and
their implications for education and public policy (pp. 251-272).
Brookes.
 CHAPTER ONE

LEARNING DISABILITIES:
AN AMBIGUOUS CATEGORY

MARIA TZOURIADOU

Introduction
During the past 60 years, learning disabilities (LD) or specific learning
disabilities (SLD) have emerged as the most well-studied and recognised
classification of special education, with the term almost becoming
synonymous with special education itself, on account of the large numbers
of students who are placed under this category. The scientific community
seems to have difficulties in understanding the nature and causes of
learning disabilities; the relevant standpoints are put “into question” or
considered “unfounded”, which leads to the “identification problem”: the
lack of consensus on how to better define a classification category for LDs
(Doris, 1993). Over a course of more than a century of studies, we have
yet to present a unanimous and conclusive answer to a plain question:
What are learning disabilities? Ever since the beginning of the 21st
century, scientists from various disciplines––but mostly educators—are
often faced with parents’ questions, such as “My child—a kindergartener—
writes backwards, is this considered dyslexia?”, “Will my child be the next
Einstein?”, “My child has difficulty in understanding concepts. Could this
be a form of dyslexia?”, or “My child is distracted and performs poorly at
school. Is this a sign of learning disabilities?”. With the help of international
organisations, such as the Learning Disabilities Association (LDA), scientists
have tried to functionally operationalise the field (i.e., to conclude whether
it forms a scientific discipline with particular characteristics, or a
“pseudoscience”, covering all and nothing), and have attempted to identify
the operational characteristics that would help children reach their full
potential, both academically and also socially (Kavale & Forness, 1985).
 Learning Disabilities: An Ambiguous Category 21

Epistemological Ambiguities of the Field

Learning disabilities or specific learning disabilities had not been an issue
of interest for education up until the late 1960s, because they represented
the lowest level of distribution of students in general education; scientifically,
however, they had been concerning scholars from various disciplines—
mainly doctors—for over 150 years. Nevertheless, the generalisation and
expansion of compulsory education, its focus on school dropout, and the
development of the knowledge-based character of school led to the
enlargement of special education and the construction of a new distinct
category, namely learning disabilities. The fact that academic achievement
was linked to the social and professional success of the individual also
contributed to this construction.

Over time, this aspect has consolidated, and learning disabilities have
turned into the most important category of special education. A key
indicator of this is the fact that programmes for children with LDs are the
most populous among students with special educational needs. In 2009,
2.5 million school students in the United States (U.S.) —approximately
5% of the total public-school enrolments—were identified with learning
disabilities. These students accounted for 42% of the 5.9 million school-
age children, with the percentage varying across states (NCLD, 2011). For
instance, in Kentucky, 3.18% of students were placed under the category
of specific learning disabilities, whereas in Massachusetts and Port Island
the correspondent figures were 9% and 9.6% (NCLD, 2011). Similar
variations were also observed both in Canada and in certain European
countries (Tzouriadou, 2011). This diversification in prevalence is related
to numerous factors, such as the diversity of the population under this
category, the establishment of higher academic standards due to the
increasing school pressure for higher achievement, the use of different
criteria for the evaluation of achievement, as well as the criteria applied to
delineate the field of learning disabilities. Due to such determining factors,
we witness the rates of students with LDs fluctuating among the different
U.S. States. Consequently, LDs represent the largest field within special
education.

With the introduction of learning disabilities as a distinct scientific field,

an operational definition was required that would include the characteristics of
students with learning disabilities, and be useful for education. By 1968,
when the first official definition was formulated in the U.S, various
definitions had been suggested that encapsulated specific characteristics in
an axiomatic manner (Outhwaite, 1983). Many of the concepts introduced
22 Chapter One

in the category had a nominal form, that is they connected words with
concepts, even in a pre-agreed way.

Kavale and Forness (1985), while analysing the definitions of LDs,

identified five pre-agreed elements-hypotheses: (a) They detect that there
is something “wrong” going on with the child (i.e., the difficulties come
from the child; (b) These difficulties are associated with or explained by
neurological dysfunction; (c) The academic difficulties are associated with
disorders in psychological processes; (d) LDs are associated with
academic underachievement or low achievement; and (e) They are not
caused by other conditions of deficiency. Kavale and Nye (1985-86),
pointed out that the pre-agreed definitions are inconsistent due to the
complexity of the phenomenon. Operational definitions also present
problems, especially in the way they are perceived and implemented because
they are not directly related to experience. Out of the five elements-
hypotheses, only academic underachievement or low achievement can be
transferred to practice, which is why it is still, regardless of definitions and
limitations, the constant criterion for inclusion in the category of learning
disabilities.

The term learning disabilities was coined by Kirk, who also came up with
the first relevant definition (Kirk, 1962). It was the first time that the
concept of disorder in the psychological processes was introduced in
academic learning. However, the definition still contains ambiguities in
terms of the field’s identification (e.g., it mentions that disabilities refer to
retardation, disorder or delay, without differentiating these terms). Moreover,
it introduces the element of exclusion from other conditions of deficit,
suggesting the case of differential diagnosis. Nevertheless, exclusion per
se is not a criterion for specifying the characteristics that differentiate LDs
from other conditions. Despite its ambiguities, Kirk’s definition succeeded
in establishing the new field of LDs, and laid the groundwork for every
formal definition in the U.S.

Despite definitions, studies and research, there is still disagreement

between scholars, researchers and educators, given that LDs have not been
established as a distinct discipline. Up to date, no causal relationship has
been determined between the phenomenology of LDs and their causal
factors. There is little understanding in terms of their nature, whilst the
interpretation of observations is still problematic, both indicating that the
main objective of forming a distinct discipline has not been fulfilled
(Cattell, 1886). The key objective of conceptualising LDs is to offer
effective and appropriate instruction, which will help to improve the
 Learning Disabilities: An Ambiguous Category 23

disabilities that students demonstrate. As a field, we have advanced from

simplistic interpretations that focused on the phenomenology of behaviour
and cognitive characteristics to more intricate ones, that take into account
cognitive, neurobiological, and educational factors. However, we must still
reach a consensus on what makes LDs a single and distinct entity, and
why.

In the U.S., there has been continuous research on the nature of LDs and
the determination of best practices for their identification. In 1989, the
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), based on
new evidence and scientific findings, tried to remove inherent ambiguities
from the field’s identification attempts, and came up with the following
formal definition:
Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous
group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition
and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or
mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual,
presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur
across the life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviours, social
perception, and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but
do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although learning
disabilities may occur concomitantly with other disabilities (for example,
sensory impairment, intellectual disabilities, emotional disturbance), or
with extrinsic influences (such as cultural or linguistic differences,
insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those
conditions or influences. (NJCLD, 1989)

The NJCLD definition emphasises the vagueness of the term “in general”
(Kavale, Spaulding, & Beam, 2009), much like the term “specific” in the
Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA, 2004) definition,
which allowed different interpretations.

In 2004, the IDEA regulation in the U.S. maintained the same definition
for SLD as previous legal and regulatory wordings. Notably, there was an
attempt to expand the identification process by including both a process
based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention
(e.g., response to intervention, RtI) and the use of other alternative
research-based processes, such as the patterns of strengths and weaknesses
(PSW) model. The IDEA definition reads as follows:
Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen,
 24 Chapter One

think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including

conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. (IDEA, 2004,
§300.8.10.i), and:

Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental
retardation, of emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage. (IDEA, 2004, §300.8.10.ii)

The IDEA definition introduces a hierarchy of processes, with the

language being higher up, both in oral and written form. Moreover, the
disorder is not only associated with difficulties in academic achievement,
but also with cognitive deficits (reasoning disorders), which pertains to
what we nowadays call meta-cognitive function. No mention of central
nervous system dysfunctions appears yet, however, there are references to
similar cases deriving from neurological disorders.

The formal definition of 2004 introduces the “specific” aspect of the disorder,
via the ambiguous distinction “in one or more”, without determining the
number of potential problems, for the disorder to be considered specific.
Furthermore, it does not proceed to clarify what “specific” means (e.g.,
whether it refers to particular characteristics in the relevant subjects and
the psychological structure, or whether the term “specific” suggests that
the disorder is idiopathic (Eisenberg, 1978), namely of unknown aetiology).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) utilises

the term specific learning disorder. Revised in 2013, the current version,
DSM-5, expands the previous definition to include the latest scientific
findings for the condition. The most important changes in this revised
edition relate to the need for support depending on the level of severity,
similarly to other developmental disorders (Scanlon, 2013). Moreover, this
change represents a conceptual change in how we, as educators, think
about what it means for individuals to have a disability and how they
respond to it.

The main traits of these attempts to define and conceptualise LDs are
linked to the idea of “unexpected underachievement” (Kirk, 1962),
because individuals with LDs do not learn to read, write and/or do
arithmetic, despite the absence of conditions that are associated with low
achievement, such as intellectual disability, sensory impairment, and so
forth. These conditions are usually considered as exclusionary because
their presence is consistent with low achievement. All the above, represent

View publication stats