Issues in specific learning disabilities: towards a data base for decision making
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 1 publication
A survey of 1,593 (807 males) children in seven primary (elementary) schools was made by means of a rating scale measuring behavior and academic difficulty. On the graded rating of learning difficulty\ 7.7 percent of the children scored above the cut-off criterion of two standard deviations above the mean and the ratio of boys to girls was 2:1. The differences between boys and girls was statistically significant. Hyperactivity was determined in this study by using the cut-off criterion of 15 on the Conners y Short Parent-Teacher Questionnaire. There were 11.4 percent of children above this cut-off criterion of hyperactivity (17.8 percent of boys and 4.9 percent of girls). Twenty-seven percent of children found to be hyperactive also scored above the criterion value for learning difficulty; only 5 percent of the non-hyperactive group scored in the learning difficulty category. Of those with learning difficulty, 41 percent were also hyperactive; 3.2 percent of the children had both hyperactivity and learning difficulty. The behaviors that most closely correlated with learning difficulty were "fails to finish things slhe starts (short attention-span)," t( inattentive and distractible," "uncoordinated, clumsy" and "fidgeting." The implications of the findings are discussed in the context of various approaches to the definitions of learning problems. H yperactivity and learning disability are topics which have generated extensive research and discussion. Winchell (1975) lists 1,874 references on hyperactivity, and Keogh, Major, Omori, Gandara and Reid (1980) sampled 4,618 learning disability citations from 1970 to 1978 to find subject characteristics that might be the basis for common markers. In each of the past three years there have been 100 to 150 listings in Index Medicus under the headings of Hyperkinesis and Learning Disorder. In spite of this extensive publication, and a long-recognized link between hyperactivity and learning difficulties (Blanchardis still little empirical information on the relationship. One problem has been that since the introduction of the terms "Learning Disability" (Kirk & Bateman, 1962) and "hyperkinetic impulse disorder" (Laufer & Denhoff, 1957), there has been much discussion of the definitions and the criteria for labelling children as having these problems. Keogh et al. (1980) criticized unclear sample description in the several hundred articles examined from the 4,618 citations called up in their research. There was, however, a high frequency of "social-behavioral" symptoms in LD samples, and Keogh et al. commented that this relationship deserved specification. These authors found a well-documented relationship between LD and socio-economic status and a beginning in consideration of differences in patterns of LD for boys and girls. The study presented here sets out to examine these issues further.Lambert and Sandoval (1980) measured the prevalence of learning disability and the frequency of this problem among hyperactive children, using the definition of learning disability as dis...
A survey of 1,593 (807 males) children in seven primary (elementary) schools was made by means of a rating scale measuring behavior and academic difficulty. On the graded rating of learning difficulty\ 7.7 percent of the children scored above the cut-off criterion of two standard deviations above the mean and the ratio of boys to girls was 2:1. The differences between boys and girls was statistically significant. Hyperactivity was determined in this study by using the cut-off criterion of 15 on the Conners y Short Parent-Teacher Questionnaire. There were 11.4 percent of children above this cut-off criterion of hyperactivity (17.8 percent of boys and 4.9 percent of girls). Twenty-seven percent of children found to be hyperactive also scored above the criterion value for learning difficulty; only 5 percent of the non-hyperactive group scored in the learning difficulty category. Of those with learning difficulty, 41 percent were also hyperactive; 3.2 percent of the children had both hyperactivity and learning difficulty. The behaviors that most closely correlated with learning difficulty were "fails to finish things slhe starts (short attention-span)," t( inattentive and distractible," "uncoordinated, clumsy" and "fidgeting." The implications of the findings are discussed in the context of various approaches to the definitions of learning problems. H yperactivity and learning disability are topics which have generated extensive research and discussion. Winchell (1975) lists 1,874 references on hyperactivity, and Keogh, Major, Omori, Gandara and Reid (1980) sampled 4,618 learning disability citations from 1970 to 1978 to find subject characteristics that might be the basis for common markers. In each of the past three years there have been 100 to 150 listings in Index Medicus under the headings of Hyperkinesis and Learning Disorder. In spite of this extensive publication, and a long-recognized link between hyperactivity and learning difficulties (Blanchardis still little empirical information on the relationship. One problem has been that since the introduction of the terms "Learning Disability" (Kirk & Bateman, 1962) and "hyperkinetic impulse disorder" (Laufer & Denhoff, 1957), there has been much discussion of the definitions and the criteria for labelling children as having these problems. Keogh et al. (1980) criticized unclear sample description in the several hundred articles examined from the 4,618 citations called up in their research. There was, however, a high frequency of "social-behavioral" symptoms in LD samples, and Keogh et al. commented that this relationship deserved specification. These authors found a well-documented relationship between LD and socio-economic status and a beginning in consideration of differences in patterns of LD for boys and girls. The study presented here sets out to examine these issues further.Lambert and Sandoval (1980) measured the prevalence of learning disability and the frequency of this problem among hyperactive children, using the definition of learning disability as dis...
The field of learning disabilities faces a fundamental problem of providing a definition acceptable to a broad constituency. In attempting to explain why this situation exists, we offer arguments based upon concepts from the history and philosophy of science. I t is concluded that learning disability is a victim of its own history, and a breaking from the past is necessary for the definitional problem to move closer to resolution. Few of us take the pains to study the origin of our cherished convictions; indeed, we have a natural repugnance to so doing. We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to them. -J. H. Robinson
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.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
