Concerns about the definitions and identification criteria for special education categories, particularly learning disabilities, are a continuing subject of Abate in the profession. Vagueness in definitions and inconsistent criteria for learning disabilities have been said to hamper research and the delively of services, and to be partly responsible fm the tremenhus prevalence ratepwth of some categories. One measure considered by some to be an indication of these definition and identification problems is the variability of prevalence rates among states. Some have stated that prevalence rates are more variable fir the higher pvalence categories, such as learning disabilities, than for the low prevalence categories. This observation, however, h e s not take into account the effects of the size of the means on the variability. When this effect is contmlled for; the higher prevalence categories are no more variable as a pup than the lower ones; in fact the variability within some higher prevalence categories is the lowest of all. The possible reasons for and implications of these findings are discussed.
This study compared interstate variability of prevalence rates for special education categories from 1984 to 1985 through 2001 to 2002, using the coefficient of variation (CV), which is designed to compare variances when the means of the groups compared are radically different. The category of learning disabilities, presumed by many to be the most variable, was consistently the least variable. Furthermore, as a group, high incidence categories were less variable than low incidence categories. The results strengthen the conclusion of Hallahan, Keller, & Ball (1986) that using state-to-state variability of disability prevalence rates as justification for criticizing learning disabilities identification practices is largely unfounded. Policy implications for methods of learning disabilities identification are discussed.
Surveys of individuals with disabilities and interpretive essays have criticized the media for their lack of coverage of disability issues and for stereotypical and inappropriate portrayals of persons with disabilities. We conducted an empirical study of a national sample of American newspapers to check the validity of these findings and ideas. We found, on the average, a sizeable number of substantial references to persons with disabilities or their family members on a daily basis. These references tended to occur in feature or “soft” news articles rather than “hard” news stories and to be about individuals with physical disabilities, mental retardation, or individuals identified by the generic labels “handicapped” and “disabled.” When articles mentioned the impact of the disability on the person's life, they often portrayed the negative impact of the disability. If articles considered the possibilities for the improvement of the person's condition, they frequently suggested the person's condition could be improved.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.