Cognitive profiles of some subtypes of learning disabled adults

Abstract

Test profiles of 100 learning disabled adults were analyzed in an attempt to determine if patterns of learning disability subtypes which have been identified in children also persist into adulthood. On the basis of Wide Range Achievement Test reading and arithmetic grade level scores, subjects were classified into one of three subgroups. The classification resulted in finding 32 subjects who were substantially better at reading than arithmetic, 17 who were better at arithmetic than reading, and the remaining 51 with less than a 1.5-year grade level discrepancy between reading and arithmetic. Subgroup membership was used as the independent variable in a series of one-way analyses of variance which tested for differences in performance patterns on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and components of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. While results support the view that most learning disabled individuals do not have specific disabilities, results suggest that it is possible to identify relatively small specific subtypes similar to those previously identified in learning disabled children, with some doing well at reading but poorly at arithmetic, and others doing very poorly at reading but relatively better, but not normally, at arithmetic. Cognitive testing of the first of these two specific subtypes revealed particular deficits in visual-spatial, nonverbal problem solving and complex psychomotor tasks. The second subtype did better on tasks of that type, but poorly on linguistic tasks.

Neuropsychological and psychosocial correlates of adult arithmetic deficiency.

“…Frauenheim and Heckerl (1983) repeated examinations of 11 adults originally seen as children and reported skill-deficit patterns similar to the earlier findings. McCue, Goldstein, Shelly, and Katz (1986) reported cognitive profiles in their adults with LDs similar to those identified in children with LDs. They also identified a small arithmetic deficient group that had definite visuospatial problems.…”

Learning Disabilities as Functions of Familial Learning Problems and Developmental Problems

“…428 Unfortunately, the underlying premise on which the strategy is based, that of differentiated, discriminable subtypes of learning disabilities, may not accurately describe the domain. Although it is possible that small specific clusters of learning disabilities, such as visual-motor deficits and verbal deficits, may exist (McCue, Goldstein, Shelly, & Katz, 1986), these clusters taken together may account for only a small proportion of the total domain. Thus several investigators now take the position that learning disabilities are intrinsically undifferentiated disorders (McCue et al, 1986;McClearn, (977) or, in the words of one group of investigators, 'The potential number of subtypes of ... learning disabilities is limited only by the ability of the neuropsychological tests to differentiate efficiently the components and subcomponents involved in any particular neuropsychological or cognitive task" (Hynd, Obrzut, Hayes, & Becker, 1986, p. 469).…”