Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Learning disability

![A girl holding a sign that says "LD = equally intelligent / Cross out stigma" poses for a photo in Times Square with a man holding a sign that says "Take a picture with a proud Dyslexic"].[assets/Take_a_picture_with_a_proud_dyslexic.jpg)[float-right] A learning disability, classified as a specific learning disorder in the DSM-5, is a neurodevelopmental disorder that impairs an individual's ability to learn and use academic skills such as reading, writing, or mathematics, despite possessing average or above-average intelligence and receiving appropriate instruction.^[1]^[2] These difficulties must persist for at least six months, significantly interfere with academic or daily functioning, and cannot be better attributed to intellectual disabilities, sensory impairments, or inadequate education.^[3] Common subtypes include impairments in reading accuracy and fluency (dyslexia), written expression (dysgraphia), and mathematical reasoning (dyscalculia), each reflecting deficits in distinct cognitive processes like phonological processing or working memory.^[2]^[4] Learning disabilities typically emerge during the school years when academic demands highlight discrepancies between potential and performance, affecting an estimated 5-15% of children worldwide, though precise prevalence varies by diagnostic criteria and population studied.^[5] Strong genetic influences underpin these disorders, with heritability estimates ranging from 40% to 70% across twin and family studies, indicating a substantial biological basis rather than solely environmental or instructional failures.^[6]^[7] While interventions such as specialized instruction and accommodations can mitigate impacts, controversies persist regarding diagnostic over-reliance on IQ-achievement discrepancies versus response-to-intervention models, and the potential for misattribution to socioeconomic factors amid evidence of robust neurological underpinnings.^[8] Early identification through comprehensive neuropsychological assessment remains crucial for optimizing outcomes, as untreated cases correlate with heightened risks of secondary issues like anxiety or underemployment in adulthood.^[9]

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

A learning disability, often termed a specific learning disorder in clinical nomenclature, constitutes a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by significant and persistent impairments in one or more foundational academic skills, including reading accuracy and fluency, reading comprehension, written expression, or mathematical computation and reasoning, despite average or above-average general intelligence and adequate educational opportunity.^[1]^[2] These deficits arise from intrinsic neurological processing differences that disrupt the brain's ability to receive, interpret, and respond to information effectively, rather than from external factors such as poor teaching or socioeconomic barriers.^[2] In educational contexts under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a specific learning disability is delineated as a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using spoken or written language, manifesting in imperfect abilities to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or perform mathematical calculations, with such issues adversely affecting educational performance.^[10] Diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorder, as outlined in the DSM-5, require documented difficulties in acquiring and using academic skills that are substantially below those expected for the individual's chronological age and level of education, persisting for at least six months despite targeted interventions that mitigate the impairments.^[1] These challenges must interfere meaningfully with academic, occupational, or daily adaptive functioning and cannot be primarily attributable to intellectual disabilities, sensory impairments (e.g., uncorrected vision or hearing loss), neurological conditions, inadequate instruction, psychosocial adversity, or lack of proficiency in the language of assessment.^[1] Onset typically occurs during the school years, although symptoms may manifest earlier in preschool through delays in phonological awareness or number sense, and evidence of the disorder is substantiated through a combination of standardized testing showing performance at least 1.5 standard deviations below the population mean in the relevant domain, alongside historical data confirming the discrepancy relative to intellectual potential.^[2]^[11] The prevalence of specific learning disorders is estimated at 5 to 15 percent among school-aged children, with dyslexia (reading-related) comprising the most common subtype, affecting approximately 80 percent of diagnosed cases.^[1] Diagnosis necessitates multidisciplinary evaluation, often integrating psychoeducational assessments, to distinguish learning disabilities from transient developmental delays or comorbid conditions like attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, ensuring interventions target the core neurocognitive deficits rather than superficial symptoms.^[2] While the IQ-achievement discrepancy model has historically informed identification—requiring a notable gap between measured intelligence and academic attainment—contemporary criteria emphasize skill mastery failures unresponsive to evidence-based instruction, reflecting a shift toward functional impairment as the diagnostic anchor.^[11]

Historical Development of the Concept

The concept of learning disabilities traces its roots to 19th-century observations of specific reading difficulties distinct from general intellectual impairment. In 1877, German physician Adolph Kussmaul described "word blindness" (alexia), identifying cases where individuals with intact vision and intelligence failed to recognize written words, attributing it to cerebral lesions rather than sensory deficits.^[12] This marked an early recognition of neurologically based academic underachievement without broader cognitive deficits. Similarly, in 1887, Rudolf Berlin coined the term "dyslexia" to denote acquired reading impairment from brain injury, later extended to congenital forms.^[13] By the early 20th century, researchers expanded beyond isolated reading issues to encompass other academic discrepancies. In 1896, British physician James Hinshelwood detailed congenital word blindness in intelligent children, emphasizing its heritability and distinction from mental deficiency.^[14] American neurologist Samuel Orton, in the 1920s, investigated "strephosymbolia"—reversals in reading and writing—linking it to incomplete cerebral dominance and proposing remedial training over mere medical diagnosis.^[15] These efforts laid groundwork for viewing such conditions as intrinsic neurological variances, not laziness or poor teaching, though terminology remained fragmented (e.g., minimal brain damage, perceptual handicaps). The modern term "learning disabilities" emerged in 1963 when psychologist Samuel Kirk presented at a Chicago conference organized by parents and educators frustrated with existing labels like "brain-injured" or "minimally brain-damaged," which stigmatized children with average intelligence but severe academic lags. Kirk defined it as a discrepancy between expected and actual achievement due to perceptual, integrative, or expressive disorders, excluding sensory or motivational causes, thus carving a category for federal policy.^[16] ^[17] This conceptualization gained traction amid post-World War II concerns over veterans' children and spurred U.S. legislative milestones, including the 1969 appointment of a federal task force and the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated identification and services.^[18] By the 1970s, the field integrated multidisciplinary evidence, shifting from anecdotal cases to standardized criteria emphasizing IQ-achievement gaps.^[19]

Distinction from Intellectual Disability and Low General Ability

Specific learning disorders, as defined in the DSM-5, involve persistent difficulties in acquiring and using academic skills such as reading, writing, or mathematics, despite provision of interventions that are appropriate for age and cognitive level, and these impairments must not be better explained by intellectual disabilities, global developmental delay, or neurological conditions affecting cognition globally.^[1]^[11] In contrast, intellectual developmental disorders (formerly intellectual disabilities) are characterized by significant limitations in both intellectual functioning, typically indicated by an IQ score approximately two standard deviations below the population mean (around 70 or lower), and in adaptive behaviors across conceptual, social, and practical domains, with onset during the developmental period.^[20] This distinction ensures that specific learning disorders identify circumscribed neurocognitive deficits rather than generalized cognitive impairment, as individuals with specific learning disorders generally exhibit average or above-average overall intelligence, allowing them to achieve in non-affected domains.^[21]^[5] The exclusion of intellectual disability from the diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorders underscores that low academic performance alone does not qualify as a learning disorder if it aligns with overall low intellectual ability; for instance, empirical studies and clinical guidelines emphasize that learning disorders require evidence of skills deficits disproportionate to general cognitive capacity, often assessed via standardized testing showing uneven cognitive profiles.^[22]^[23] Low general ability, by comparison, manifests as uniformly reduced performance across cognitive and academic tasks commensurate with a below-average IQ, without the unexpected underachievement in isolated areas that defines learning disorders.^[24] Traditional identification models, such as the IQ-achievement discrepancy approach, historically quantified this by requiring a significant gap between IQ scores (typically 85 or higher for learning disorder eligibility) and achievement levels, thereby differentiating specific processing deficits from broad low aptitude.^[25]^[26] Although the DSM-5 shifted away from mandating strict IQ discrepancies in favor of patterns of strengths and weaknesses alongside response to intervention, the core separation persists: learning disorders do not imply reduced general intelligence, and diagnoses must rule out intellectual disability as a primary cause, supported by longitudinal data showing that individuals with learning disorders often succeed in higher education or professions when accommodations address specific skill gaps.^[27]^[28] This framework aligns with neurobiological evidence of localized brain differences in learning disorders—such as atypical activation in reading-related regions for dyslexia—versus diffuse impairments in intellectual disability.^[29] Misattribution risks exist, particularly in under-resourced assessments where low achievement might be conflated with low ability without comprehensive IQ and adaptive testing, but rigorous criteria prevent over-diagnosis of learning disorders in cases of global cognitive limitation.^[30]^[31]

Etiology and Causal Mechanisms

Genetic and Neurobiological Underpinnings

Twin studies indicate substantial genetic heritability for learning disabilities, with monozygotic concordance rates for reading disability reaching 84% compared to 48% for dizygotic twins, and approximately 70% versus 50% for mathematics disability.^[32] Heritability estimates range from 50-70% for reading disabilities and 40-70% for mathematics disabilities, supporting a strong polygenic influence where "generalist genes" affect multiple cognitive domains rather than domain-specific effects alone.^[33] These findings arise from large-scale twin cohorts, highlighting shared genetic variance across learning impairments while accounting for environmental modulation.^[32] Candidate genes for dyslexia, the most extensively studied learning disability, cluster around neuronal migration pathways. Replicated associations include DYX1C1 on chromosome 15q21, involved in protein interactions affecting neuronal migration and potentially estrogen signaling; KIAA0319 and DCDC2 on chromosome 6p22, both encoding proteins that regulate neuronal migration and microtubule stability in cortical development.^[34] Variants in DCDC2, such as deletions, disrupt dendritic morphology and cilia signaling, contributing to phonological and reading deficits.^[34] Genetic overlap extends to dyscalculia and dysgraphia through shared loci with conditions like ADHD, explaining comorbid rates up to 50%.^[33] Neuroimaging reveals structural anomalies in learning disabilities, including reduced gray and white matter volume in left-hemisphere occipito-temporal and temporo-parietal regions for reading disabilities, alongside diminished white matter integrity and absent left-greater-than-right asymmetry in the planum temporale.^[35] Functional MRI studies show hypoactivation in core reading networks, such as the left ventral occipito-temporal cortex (including the visual word form area), superior temporal gyrus, inferior parietal lobule, and inferior frontal gyrus during phonological tasks.^[33] For mathematics disabilities, disruptions occur in the right intraparietal sulcus for quantity processing, bilateral fusiform gyrus, and prefrontal areas like the middle frontal gyrus, with altered connectivity underlying domain-general deficits in working memory.^[33] Comorbid cases exhibit overlapping prefrontal involvement, suggesting additive neural impairments rather than isolated modular failures.^[33] These differences, observed pre-reading in at-risk children, underscore causal neurodevelopmental origins over experiential confounds.^[35]

Prenatal and Perinatal Risk Factors

Prenatal exposure to alcohol represents a well-documented risk factor for neurodevelopmental impairments, including specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia and dyscalculia, through mechanisms involving disrupted fetal brain development and reduced cognitive processing speeds.^[36] Maternal smoking during pregnancy has been associated with increased odds of developmental dyslexia, potentially due to nicotine's interference with neuronal migration and synaptic formation in the fetal brain.^[37] Similarly, prenatal exposure to illicit substances like opioids and methamphetamine elevates the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders manifesting as learning deficits, with cohort studies reporting adjusted odds ratios up to 1.5-2.0 for attention-related academic impairments that overlap with learning disability profiles.^[38] ^[39] Maternal infections and nutritional deficiencies during pregnancy also contribute to learning disability risk by inducing inflammation or depriving the fetus of essential micronutrients critical for cortical maturation. For example, deficiencies in folate or omega-3 fatty acids have been linked to poorer reading outcomes in offspring, as evidenced by longitudinal studies tracking cognitive trajectories from gestation through school age.^[40] Toxin exposures, such as lead or environmental pollutants, further compound vulnerability by altering gene expression in brain regions responsible for language and executive function, though effect sizes vary by dosage and timing of exposure.^[41] Perinatal complications, particularly preterm birth and low birth weight, account for a substantial population-attributable fraction of learning disabilities, estimated at 10-20% in epidemiological models, owing to immature neural circuitry and white matter disruptions.^[42] Meta-analyses of very preterm or very low birth weight cohorts reveal moderate to severe deficits in academic achievement, including reading comprehension and mathematical reasoning, with standardized mean differences in IQ-achievement gaps persisting into adolescence.^[43] ^[44] Birth asphyxia and hypoxia elevate the relative risk of dyslexia by up to 2-3 times, as hypoxia impairs hippocampal and prefrontal development essential for memory consolidation and phonological processing.^[45] Other perinatal insults, such as hypoglycemia or mechanical trauma during delivery, independently heighten susceptibility, with combined complications amplifying educational difficulties by factors of 4-6 in multivariate analyses.^[46]^[47]

Gene-Environment Interactions

Gene-environment interactions play a critical role in the etiology of learning disabilities, where genetic liabilities are modulated by environmental exposures to influence the onset, severity, and manifestation of specific deficits such as those in reading or mathematics. Twin studies indicate heritability estimates for dyslexia between 49% and 72%, underscoring a strong genetic component, yet residual variance arises from non-shared environmental factors and their interplay with genotype, as identical twins discordant for dyslexia demonstrate differences attributable to unique experiences like variable early literacy exposure.^[48]^[49] Empirical evidence from molecular genetics reveals specific interactions, such as variants in the DYX1C1 gene, implicated in neuronal migration, interacting with environmental factors to affect reading phenotypes; for instance, carriers of risk alleles exhibit exacerbated deficits under conditions of low home literacy support or suboptimal early education.^[50] Similarly, genome-wide analyses in school-aged children have identified gene-environment (G×E) effects on reading ability, where polygenic risk scores for developmental dyslexia interact with socioeconomic or instructional environments to predict performance variance beyond main effects.^[51] Adverse prenatal and perinatal environments amplify genetic risks; maternal smoking or nutrient deficiencies can interact with susceptibility genes to heighten dyslexia liability, as shown in longitudinal cohorts tracking fetal development to cognitive outcomes.^[52] Conversely, enriched environments, including high-quality schooling, attenuate genetic influences on learning impairments by fostering compensatory neural pathways, with structural equation modeling in large twin samples revealing reduced heritability in supportive settings.^[53] Epigenetic processes exemplify these interactions, as environmental stressors alter DNA methylation or histone modifications without changing underlying sequences, thereby silencing or activating genes linked to neurodevelopment; in specific learning disabilities, such as dyscalculia, early adversity-induced epigenetic marks on math-related loci correlate with persistent deficits.^[6]^[54] This mechanism accounts for transgenerational effects observed in family pedigrees, where parental exposures epigenetically tag offspring risk alleles.^[55] Quantitative genetic models from multivariate twin analyses further support "generalist genes" underlying multiple learning domains, with G×E explaining why genetic correlations across disabilities like dyslexia and dyscalculia vary by environmental context, such as urban vs. rural schooling demands.^[56] These findings challenge purely additive models, emphasizing causal realism in which environments do not merely add to genetic effects but multiplicatively shape trajectories, as evidenced by differential brain activation patterns in dyslexia under varying phonological training regimes.^[57] Despite robust evidence, detection of G×E remains underpowered in many studies due to small effect sizes and measurement challenges, necessitating larger, longitudinal designs to disentangle from gene-environment correlation.^[58]

Diagnosis and Identification Challenges

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Approach

The IQ-achievement discrepancy approach defines a specific learning disability (SLD) as a significant gap between an individual's measured intellectual ability (typically via standardized IQ tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and their academic achievement in areas like reading, mathematics, or writing, where achievement falls substantially below expectations based on IQ.^[23] This method posits that such underachievement, unexplained by other factors like inadequate instruction or sensory impairments, indicates an intrinsic processing deficit rather than general cognitive limitation.^[59] Common operational criteria require the discrepancy to exceed 1.5 to 2 standard deviations (approximately 22-30 points on normed scales), ensuring the gap is statistically meaningful and not attributable to measurement error.^[60]^[61] Originating in the 1960s as part of early efforts to distinguish SLD from intellectual disability, the approach gained prominence through U.S. federal regulations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which initially permitted states to use it for eligibility determination.^[62] Proponents argued it captured "unexpected" underachievement in individuals with otherwise average or above-average intelligence, aligning with causal models emphasizing domain-specific cognitive inefficiencies over global ability deficits.^[63] However, empirical validation has been limited; studies comparing discrepancy-identified groups to low achievers without discrepancies find no reliable differences in cognitive profiles, treatment responsiveness, or long-term outcomes, undermining claims of diagnostic specificity.^[64]^[61] Key limitations include statistical artifacts like regression to the mean, where IQ-achievement correlations (typically 0.5-0.7) inflate apparent discrepancies in borderline cases, leading to inconsistent classifications across test administrations or instruments.^[65] The model delays identification until failure accumulates—often in upper elementary grades—missing opportunities for early intervention, as younger children with average IQ may not yet exhibit large enough gaps despite underlying deficits.^[66] Furthermore, it over-relies on IQ as a proxy for potential, ignoring evidence that general intelligence correlates positively with achievement remediation success, such that low-IQ low-achievers may respond comparably to interventions as discrepancy cases.^[67] Meta-analyses and longitudinal data reveal that discrepancy criteria fail to predict unique neurobiological markers or instructional needs, prompting the 2004 IDEA reauthorization to de-emphasize the model in favor of alternatives like response to intervention.^[64]^[68] Despite these evidentiary shortcomings, the approach persists in some U.S. states and international contexts due to familiarity and regulatory inertia, though peer-reviewed consensus highlights its poor reliability for individual-level decisions and recommends hybrid or process-based assessments instead.^[69]^[70] Research on diverse populations, such as Spanish-speaking children, similarly shows discrepancy methods yield invalid identifications when cultural-linguistic factors confound IQ or achievement measures.^[71] Overall, the model's causal assumptions—that IQ fully predicts achievement absent SLD—lack robust support from neuroimaging or genetic studies, which instead emphasize multifaceted processing variances over rigid thresholds.^[63]^[65]

Response to Intervention Framework

The Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, also known as Response to Instruction and Intervention, is a multi-tiered, data-driven process designed to identify and support students experiencing academic difficulties, serving as an alternative to the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy model for determining specific learning disabilities (SLD).^[72] Implemented within general education, RTI emphasizes early screening, high-quality classroom instruction, and ongoing progress monitoring to gauge a student's responsiveness to evidence-based interventions before considering special education eligibility.^[73] This approach gained formal endorsement in the United States through the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which permitted states to use RTI data in lieu of strict discrepancy criteria for SLD identification, aiming to reduce reliance on potentially flawed IQ testing and promote prevention over remediation.^[74] RTI operates through three escalating tiers of intervention. Tier 1 involves universal screening of all students and delivery of research-based core instruction in the general classroom, with progress monitored via frequent assessments to identify non-responders comprising approximately 15-20% of students.^[72] Tier 2 provides targeted, small-group supplemental interventions for those showing inadequate progress, typically lasting 6-12 weeks with biweekly monitoring.^[73] Tier 3 offers intensive, individualized support, often daily and extending up to several months, after which persistent non-responsiveness—defined by failure to achieve expected benchmarks despite validated interventions—may trigger a comprehensive evaluation for SLD under IDEA criteria.^[75] The framework prioritizes fidelity in intervention delivery, using tools like curriculum-based measurements for objective decision-making, though implementation varies widely across schools.^[76] Empirical evidence supports RTI's role in early intervention and reducing unnecessary special education placements. A 2024 analysis of RTI adoption in U.S. districts found it decreased overall special education identification by 1.4 percentage points (an 11% reduction) and SLD identification by 0.5 percentage points (15%), with particular reading gains observed among Black students but no broad achievement impacts across other groups.^[77] Reviews indicate RTI can prevent academic failure by addressing instructional gaps promptly, potentially lowering false positives for disabilities caused by poor teaching rather than intrinsic deficits.^[78] However, studies highlight inconsistent outcomes, with effectiveness hinging on rigorous progress monitoring and intervention quality; meta-analyses show modest improvements in reading and math for at-risk students but limited long-term evidence for precise SLD differentiation.^[73]^[76] Criticisms of RTI center on its potential to delay or obscure true SLD identification, as the "wait-to-fail" structure may require documented non-response before evaluation, risking prolonged exposure to inadequate support for students with inherent cognitive processing deficits unresponsive to standard interventions.^[79] Research identifies implementation barriers, including insufficient teacher training, variable fidelity, and lack of standardized criteria for defining "adequate response," which can lead to subjective decisions and over-reliance on general education resources without addressing underlying neurobiological factors.^[80]^[81] Ethical concerns arise from using RTI as the sole eligibility determinant, as it may violate legal standards for comprehensive assessment under IDEA, potentially under-identifying students needing specialized services or conflating environmental instructional failures with disabilities.^[82] Experts recommend RTI as a supportive tool within a broader evaluation framework, including cognitive testing, rather than a standalone diagnostic method, to ensure causal accuracy in distinguishing SLD from other learning barriers.^[75]^[79]

Evidence of Overdiagnosis and Diagnostic Pitfalls

Diagnosis rates for specific learning disorders have risen in the United States, with parent-reported ever-diagnosed learning disabilities increasing from 7.86% in 2016 to 9.15% among children by 2023.^[83] Similarly, national estimates indicate a prevalence of 8.83% among children aged 6 to 17 years from 1997 onward, reflecting a trend that some researchers attribute to expanded awareness but others critique as evidence of overdiagnosis driven by non-neurological factors such as inadequate instruction or environmental influences.^[84] Behavior scientist Kimberly Berens has argued that while approximately 20% of U.S. children receive learning disability labels, fewer than 1% exhibit true neurological impairments, with mislabeling often stemming from cumulative skill deficits due to flawed educational practices rather than inherent disorders.^[85] A primary diagnostic pitfall lies in the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy model, which identifies learning disabilities only when academic underachievement significantly diverges from intellectual potential, yet lacks empirical validation and contributes to inconsistent and potentially inflated identifications.^[86] Critics highlight that this approach overlooks processing weaknesses in high-ability students while failing to differentiate specific deficits from broader instructional failures or low general aptitude, leading to false positives where environmental shortcomings—such as poor teaching quality—are pathologized as disorders.^[63] For instance, behavioral symptoms like reading difficulties may reflect unaddressed foundational gaps rather than neurodevelopmental anomalies, exacerbating overreliance on subjective teacher referrals without rigorous exclusion of alternative causes like limited prior exposure or English language learner status.^[87] Further pitfalls include the absence of objective biomarkers, resulting in diagnoses based predominantly on achievement tests and behavioral observations prone to bias, including disproportionate identifications among certain demographic groups due to assessment flaws or implicit evaluator prejudices.^[88] The Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, intended to mitigate premature labeling by requiring documented non-response to targeted instruction, has been proposed as an alternative but still risks overdiagnosis if interventions inadequately address systemic instructional deficits or if incentives—such as access to special education funding—prompt evasion of exclusionary criteria.^[87] Analyses suggest that up to 5% of school-aged children may be misidentified when environmental and maturational factors are insufficiently considered, underscoring the need for multimethod evaluations emphasizing causal mechanisms over symptom checklists.^[87]

Classification and Specific Types

Dyslexia and Reading Impairments

Dyslexia constitutes a specific learning disability characterized by persistent difficulties in accurate and/or fluent word recognition, decoding, and spelling, despite adequate educational opportunities, intelligence within or above the average range, and absence of sensory or neurological impairments that could account for the deficits.^[89]^[90] This neurodevelopmental disorder primarily affects reading acquisition, with core phonological processing deficits impairing the ability to segment speech sounds, map them to graphemes, and retrieve phonological representations from memory.^[91] Associated features include slower verbal processing speed, reduced verbal short-term memory, and challenges in rapid automatized naming, which compound reading fluency issues but do not extend to generalized cognitive impairment.^[91]^[92] Neurobiologically, dyslexia arises from atypical development in left-hemisphere perisylvian brain regions critical for phonological and orthographic processing, including reduced activation in the temporoparietal and occipitotemporal areas during reading tasks.^[93] High heritability, estimated at 50-70%, supports a polygenic etiology involving multiple genetic loci influencing neuronal migration, synaptic pruning, and white matter connectivity in reading-related pathways.^[94] Functional neuroimaging reveals hypoactivation in these circuits, correlating with decoding severity, while structural studies show anomalies like ectopias in the periventricular zone, though environmental factors such as prenatal exposures may modulate expression without causing the core deficit.^[95]^[93] Subtypes of dyslexia delineate heterogeneous reading impairment profiles: phonological dyslexia features profound deficits in nonword reading and decoding due to impaired grapheme-phoneme conversion, with relatively preserved exception word recognition; surface dyslexia manifests as better performance on phonologically transparent words but errors on irregular or morphologically complex items, reflecting weaker orthographic-lexical links.^[96] The double-deficit subtype combines phonological weaknesses with slow naming speed, predicting the most severe and persistent impairments, affecting approximately 10-20% of dyslexic individuals.^[96] These distinctions, identified through cluster analysis of reading tasks, underscore that reading impairments in dyslexia stem from varied cognitive bottlenecks rather than a unitary deficit.^[97] Diagnosis requires evidence of reading achievement substantially below age-expected levels for at least six months, despite intervention, with impairments not better explained by intellectual disability, sensory loss, or inadequate instruction.^[1] Standardized assessments evaluate single-word reading, pseudoword decoding, spelling, phonological awareness, and rapid naming, often alongside IQ testing to confirm domain-specificity.^[98] Prevalence estimates range from 5% to 10% globally, with males slightly overrepresented (7% vs. 3-5% in females), though ascertainment biases may inflate figures in screened populations.^[99] Early identification, feasible by age 5-6 via phonological risk factors, mitigates long-term academic impacts, emphasizing the causal primacy of neurocognitive mechanisms over sociocultural explanations.^[100]^[99]

Dyscalculia and Mathematical Difficulties

Dyscalculia, often termed developmental dyscalculia or classified under specific learning disorder with impairment in mathematics per DSM-5, manifests as persistent deficits in numerical understanding, arithmetic fact retrieval, calculation fluency, and mathematical reasoning, unrelated to overall intellectual ability, sensory deficits, or inadequate education.^[101]^[3] These core impairments typically emerge in early school years, with affected individuals struggling to grasp quantity representation, subitize small sets of objects, or estimate numerical magnitudes accurately.^[102] DSM-5 specifies that symptoms must persist for at least six months despite targeted interventions, with performance falling substantially below age-expected levels on standardized tests, often by 1.5 standard deviations or more.^[1]^[103] Prevalence estimates place dyscalculia at 3-7% among children, adolescents, and adults, with higher rates in comorbid conditions like dyslexia or ADHD, though it frequently occurs independently.^[101] Neurobiologically, it correlates with reduced gray matter volume and atypical functional connectivity in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS), a key region for approximate number sense, alongside disruptions in frontoparietal networks for calculation and prefrontal areas for working memory in arithmetic.^[104]^[105] Genetic factors contribute, with heritability estimates around 60-70% from twin studies, implicating variants in genes regulating neuronal migration and synaptic plasticity in numerical processing circuits.^[106] Distinct from broader mathematical difficulties—which may arise from instructional gaps, motivational deficits, or transient anxiety—dyscalculia reflects innate, domain-specific cognitive impairments in the approximate number system (ANS), persisting into adulthood and resistant to rote practice alone.^[107]^[108] For instance, individuals with dyscalculia often exhibit finger agnosia or acalculia-like errors in multi-digit operations, not merely slower performance but fundamental errors in symbol-to-quantity mapping, as evidenced by fMRI studies showing hypoactivation in quantity-sensitive brain regions during tasks like dot enumeration.^[109] Subtypes include those with primary deficits in fact retrieval versus procedural computation, with the former linked to temporal-parietal junction anomalies and the latter to executive function overload in prefrontal circuits.^[110] Early identification via non-verbal number tasks, such as comparing dot arrays without counting, differentiates it from environmental factors, emphasizing its neurodevelopmental origins over acquired skill gaps.^[111]

Dysgraphia and Written Expression Deficits

Dysgraphia, formally termed specific learning disorder with impairment in written expression under DSM-5 criteria, manifests as persistent difficulties in producing accurate and fluent written output despite exposure to appropriate instruction and intellectual capability. Core deficits include impaired spelling accuracy, grammar and punctuation errors, and challenges in organizing ideas for clear written expression, often independent of reading or oral language proficiency.^[112] These impairments arise from disruptions in orthographic processing—the mental representation and retrieval of letter strings—and motor execution of handwriting, distinguishing dysgraphia from general motor clumsiness or lack of practice.^[113] Symptoms typically emerge in early school years, with children struggling to form letters legibly, maintain consistent spacing or alignment, and sustain writing without excessive fatigue or pain in hand muscles.^[114] Advanced manifestations involve disjointed paragraph structure, omitted details in narratives, and reliance on verbal retelling over written composition due to planning deficits.^[115] Unlike dyslexia, which primarily affects decoding printed text, dysgraphia centers on encoding ideas into text, though comorbidity occurs in up to 50% of cases with other learning disorders.^[116] Neurologically, dysgraphia correlates with atypical white matter tracts in regions like the superior longitudinal fasciculus, which supports grapho-motor coordination, and reduced activation in premotor and parietal areas during writing tasks.^[117] Functional MRI studies reveal inefficient connectivity between language and motor networks, suggesting a causal basis in disrupted neural pathways for translating cognitive content into physical script rather than environmental or motivational factors alone.^[118] Prevalence estimates range from 5% to 10% among school-aged children, with higher rates in males and those with comorbid developmental coordination disorder, underscoring underdiagnosis due to overlap with attentional issues.^[119] Diagnosis requires comprehensive evaluation, including timed handwriting samples, spelling tests under cognitive load, and exclusion of visual-motor impairments or inadequate education via standardized measures like the Test of Written Language.^[116] Pitfalls include mistaking dysgraphia for laziness or behavioral non-compliance, as affected individuals often expend disproportionate effort for subpar output, leading to secondary frustration or avoidance.^[114] Early identification, ideally by age 7-8 when writing demands intensify, relies on multidisciplinary input from educators and neuropsychologists to differentiate domain-specific deficits from broader cognitive delays.^[115]

Other Domain-Specific Variants

Specific learning disabilities may also manifest in oral language domains, including oral expression and listening comprehension, as delineated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which recognizes impairments in the psychological processes involved in listening, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or mathematical calculations.^[120] Oral expression deficits involve persistent difficulties in organizing thoughts, recalling vocabulary, formulating grammatically correct sentences, or engaging in discourse, despite normal nonverbal intelligence and opportunities for language exposure; these challenges often lead to problems in classroom participation, storytelling, or following multi-step verbal instructions.^[121] ^[122] Listening comprehension impairments, similarly domain-specific, entail struggles with deriving meaning from spoken language, such as understanding implied content, tracking narratives, or processing rapid speech, which can hinder academic progress in subjects reliant on lectures or discussions without affecting basic hearing.^[123] ^[124] Nonverbal learning disability (NVLD), proposed as a distinct variant in research literature though absent from DSM-5 as a formal subtype, features pronounced discrepancies between superior verbal abilities (e.g., rote memorization, reading decoding) and deficits in nonverbal domains like visual-spatial processing, novel problem-solving, motor coordination, and social cue interpretation.^[125] ^[126] Individuals with NVLD often exhibit strengths in linguistic tasks but face challenges in mathematics requiring spatial reasoning, handwriting due to poor graphomotor control, or adapting to novel situations, with estimated prevalence ranging from 2.2 to 2.9 million children in the U.S. based on large-scale surveys using proposed diagnostic criteria.^[127] ^[128] These impairments stem from hypothesized right-hemisphere dysfunction, leading to over-reliance on verbal strategies and difficulties with abstract or contextual nonverbal information, as evidenced in systematic reviews of cognitive profiles.^[129] Other proposed domain-specific variants include language processing disorder (LPD), characterized by selective difficulties in receptive or expressive spoken language components such as syntax comprehension or conversational pragmatics, independent of general intelligence, which can exacerbate academic delays in verbal-heavy curricula.^[130] Auditory processing disorder (APD), while primarily perceptual, intersects with learning disabilities by impairing the interpretation of auditory signals for phonological awareness or following directions, though it requires differentiation from peripheral hearing loss via specialized audiometric testing.^[130] Visual perceptual or visual-motor deficits represent another variant, involving challenges in spatial orientation, figure-ground discrimination, or eye-hand coordination that affect tasks like copying diagrams or estimating quantities, often co-occurring with but distinguishable from core written expression impairments.^[130] These variants underscore the heterogeneity of specific learning disabilities, with diagnostic emphasis on intra-individual discrepancies and exclusion of sensory or intellectual deficits as primary causes.^[131]

Prevalence, Epidemiology, and Demographic Patterns

Global and National Incidence Rates

The prevalence of specific learning disabilities (SLD), encompassing disorders such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia, is estimated globally at 5% to 15% among school-aged children, based on DSM-5 criteria applied across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.^[132] This range reflects inconsistencies in diagnostic thresholds, screening availability, and cultural interpretations of academic underachievement, with lower rates reported in regions with limited access to specialized assessments, such as parts of South Asia where prevalence may fall to 3-10%.^[133] Comprehensive global surveys are scarce due to varying definitions, but population-based studies consistently indicate that SLD affects a significant minority of children, independent of general intellectual ability.^[134] In the United States, national data from the National Health Interview Survey show the prevalence of diagnosed learning disabilities among children aged 3-17 years at approximately 8.0% as of 2011-2012, with more recent analyses from 1997-2018 estimating rates between 8.7% and 9.7%.^[135]^[84] Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), specific learning disabilities constitute the largest category of special education eligibility, accounting for about 32% of students receiving such services, or roughly 5-6% of total public school enrollment as of recent fiscal years.^[136] These figures have remained relatively stable, though diagnostic trends show slight increases potentially linked to heightened awareness and expanded criteria rather than true incidence rises.^[84] In the United Kingdom, prevalence estimates for specific learning difficulties, including dyslexia, range from 3% to 9%, though official statistics often embed these within broader special educational needs (SEN) categories affecting over 15% of pupils as of the 2024/25 academic year.^[137]^[138] Note that UK terminology frequently distinguishes "learning disabilities" as synonymous with intellectual disabilities (prevalence around 2-2.5% in children), separate from domain-specific SLD, leading to potential underreporting of the latter in national health data.^[139] Comparative national rates in other developed countries, such as Canada (5-9%) and Australia (7.4%), align closely with U.S. figures, underscoring a pattern of 4-10% prevalence in high-resource settings where standardized testing is routine.^[137]

Variations by Demographics and Socioeconomic Status

Males are diagnosed with specific learning disabilities at significantly higher rates than females, with a male-to-female ratio approximating 3:1 in the United States based on school-age populations.^[137] This disparity persists across categories such as reading and writing impairments, though it has prompted debate regarding whether it reflects biological differences in prevalence—potentially linked to genetic or neurodevelopmental factors—or artifacts of referral and diagnostic biases, where externalizing behaviors in boys more readily prompt evaluation.^[137]^[140] Among students receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), approximately 65% are male, with specific learning disabilities comprising the largest category at 32% of such cases.^[136]^[141] Racial and ethnic variations in learning disability identification show higher proportions among certain minority groups in U.S. public schools. American Indian/Alaska Native students exhibit the highest rate of service under IDEA at 17%, followed by Black students, while overall prevalence estimates for diagnosed learning disabilities among children aged 6-17 stand at 8.83%.^[142]^[84] Compared to other groups, American Indian/Alaska Native students are 1.8 times more likely to be identified, and Hispanic students 1.1 times more likely, though these patterns are confounded by factors such as language barriers, cultural assessment mismatches, and socioeconomic overlays that may inflate or obscure true incidence.^[88] Disproportionality analyses indicate that while overrepresentation occurs in some categories, under-identification persists for students of color in others, potentially due to inequities in screening access or diagnostic criteria application.^[143] Socioeconomic status (SES) correlates positively with learning disability risk, with lower SES linked to elevated prevalence through environmental mediators like prenatal nutrition deficits, chronic stress, and substandard early education.^[144] Children from low-SES backgrounds face heightened susceptibility to developmental delays and learning impairments, as evidenced by studies showing SES moderation of phonological and reading deficits, where higher-SES cases more often align with domain-specific cognitive weaknesses rather than broad environmental insults.^[145]^[146] Bidirectional effects amplify this: disabilities can perpetuate low SES via reduced academic attainment, while low SES exacerbates disability through resource scarcity, though causal inference remains challenged by confounding variables like family structure and urbanicity.^[147] Recent data underscore that subjective low SES predicts poorer health outcomes intertwined with intellectual and learning challenges, independent of objective income measures in some cohorts.^[148]

Manifestations and Impacts

Cognitive and Academic Consequences

Individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLD) demonstrate circumscribed cognitive deficits in processes such as phonological awareness, working memory, and rapid automatized naming, which persist despite intact general intelligence and adequate educational opportunity.^[149] ^[150] A selective meta-analysis of 32 studies confirmed that students with SLD underperform typically developing peers on these measures, with effect sizes indicating moderate to large impairments in verbal short-term memory (Hedges' g = 0.72) and phonological skills (g = 0.85), though global cognitive abilities remain comparable.^[150] In dyslexia, the predominant SLD subtype affecting approximately 80% of cases, phonological processing deficits disrupt decoding and word recognition, yielding reading accuracy and fluency rates often below the 10th percentile and correlating with inefficient neural activation in left temporo-parietal regions during language tasks.^[1] ^[35] These impairments extend to reduced reading comprehension, as limited automaticity in lower-level skills taxes working memory resources needed for higher-order inference.^[149] Dyscalculia involves core deficits in numerical magnitude representation and subitizing, leading to errors in basic arithmetic and estimation tasks; research links these to atypical intraparietal sulcus function and weaker associations with executive functions like inhibition.^[109] ^[151] Dysgraphia manifests as fine-motor and orthographic processing weaknesses, impairing handwriting legibility and spelling accuracy, which compound fatigue during extended writing demands.^[152] Academically, SLD yield disproportionate underachievement: U.S. data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that over 90% of fourth- and eighth-grade students with SLD score below proficiency in reading, with similar gaps in mathematics where dyscalculia prevalence exacerbates computation errors by 20-30% relative to IQ-matched peers.^[153] Longitudinal studies report SLD students lagging 1-2 standard deviations behind in domain-specific achievement by grade 3, persisting without intervention and elevating high school dropout risk to 2.5-3 times that of non-disabled peers (34% vs. 12% in 2020 cohorts).^[136] ^[154] Co-occurring deficits across domains, observed in 40-60% of cases, amplify cumulative academic delays, as reading fluency underpins math word problems and science comprehension.^[155]

Long-Term Outcomes in Adulthood and Health Risks

Individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLD) often encounter persistent challenges in achieving employment stability and financial independence in adulthood, with longitudinal data indicating lower workforce participation rates compared to peers without disabilities. In a cohort of young adults with developmental language disorder—a condition frequently comorbid with SLD—employment reached 66%, but full-time positions were held by only 36%, versus 53% among controls; moreover, 90% occupied non-professional roles compared to 60% of peers.^[156] Postsecondary education mitigates these disparities, as adults with SLD who complete higher education exhibit improved employment prospects, including higher wages and job retention, though access remains limited, with university degree attainment as low as 10% in affected groups versus 41% in unaffected peers.^[157]^[156] Educational trajectories into adulthood reflect these hurdles, with SLD linked to early school exit and reduced qualification levels; for example, only 18% of those with comorbid language impairments achieve advanced secondary credentials, constraining career advancement and perpetuating cycles of underemployment.^[156] Independence metrics, such as independent living, are similarly compromised, with higher reliance on family support due to barriers in navigating administrative tasks, financial management, and vocational training—outcomes exacerbated by unaddressed academic gaps persisting from childhood.^[158] Mental health risks constitute a primary long-term concern, with adults holding SLD diagnoses exhibiting markedly elevated psychological distress, including symptoms of anxiety and depression; in one study, 54% scored indicative of serious distress on standardized scales, compared to 27% in the general population, with reading and writing deficits emerging as stronger predictors than arithmetic impairments.^[159] Women and younger adults (ages 18–29) with SLD report particularly acute elevations, potentially stemming from chronic academic frustrations and social stigmatization, though causal links require further disaggregation from comorbid conditions like ADHD.^[159]^[160] Physical health risks show weaker direct associations with SLD in isolation, differing from broader neurodevelopmental profiles; however, indirect pathways via mental health comorbidities and socioeconomic disadvantages may heighten vulnerabilities to conditions like obesity, as observed in neurodivergent populations with relative risk ratios of 1.64 for obesity.^[161] Limited longitudinal evidence ties unresolved SLD to sedentary lifestyles or poor health literacy, potentially amplifying cardiovascular or metabolic risks, but these outcomes are confounded by overlapping disorders and warrant scrutiny beyond institutional narratives emphasizing universal accommodations over skill-building interventions.^[162]

Evidence-Based Management and Interventions

Structured Educational Approaches

Structured educational approaches emphasize explicit, systematic instruction that decomposes skills into sequential components, incorporates modeling, guided practice, cumulative review, and immediate corrective feedback to address deficits in learning disabilities. These methods contrast with less structured discovery-based learning by prioritizing teacher-directed delivery and mastery criteria before progression, yielding stronger outcomes in empirical studies for domains like reading and mathematics. A synthesis of research identifies direct instruction and strategy training as core evidence-based practices, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to large in controlled trials for students with specific learning disabilities.^[163] In reading disabilities such as dyslexia, structured literacy interventions systematically teach phonological awareness, sound-symbol correspondence, syllable instruction, morphology, syntax, and semantics through explicit phonics and multi-sensory reinforcement. Programs like Orton-Gillingham variants, which integrate visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile elements, have shown efficacy in meta-analyses; one review of 11 studies reported standardized mean differences of 0.59 for word reading and 0.49 for phonological awareness in students with or at risk for word-level reading difficulties, though effects on comprehension were smaller (0.20).^[164] These approaches outperform balanced literacy in recent comparisons, with structured methods producing gains in decoding and spelling that persist post-intervention, as evidenced by a 2024 meta-analysis favoring explicit code-based instruction over whole-language elements.^[165] However, not all implementations yield uniform results; lower-quality studies inflate apparent benefits, and comprehension gains require integrated vocabulary and text-level practice beyond isolated phonics.^[166] For mathematical disabilities like dyscalculia, direct instruction models—featuring scripted lessons, frequent teacher questioning, and error correction—enhance number sense, fact retrieval, and procedural fluency. Randomized trials demonstrate that such programs, applied in small groups or individually, improve computation accuracy by 20-30% over standard curricula, with lasting effects observed up to one year post-intervention in elementary students.^[167] These gains stem from breaking arithmetic into subskills (e.g., counting principles before multi-digit operations) and using concrete-representational-abstract progressions, supported by neuroimaging evidence of strengthened neural pathways for numerical processing.^[131] In writing deficits such as dysgraphia, structured approaches combine explicit handwriting instruction with multi-sensory techniques, including tactile tracing and verbal cueing to refine motor planning and letter formation. A controlled study of multisensory training in dysgraphic children aged 7-10 reported significant pre-post improvements in writing legibility and speed, with effect sizes exceeding 1.0, attributed to reinforced sensorimotor integration that reduces cognitive overload during composition.^[168] Peer-assisted strategies, where structured scripting guides collaborative editing, further bolster self-regulation and output quality in domain-general learning disabilities.^[169] Across variants, implementation fidelity—measured by adherence to scripted protocols and dosage (typically 20-30 hours minimum)—predicts outcomes, with under-dosing common in school settings diluting effects. While effective for mild-to-moderate cases, these approaches show diminishing returns for severe comorbidities without integrated behavioral supports, underscoring the need for individualized assessment over blanket application.^[131]

Targeted Remediation Techniques

Targeted remediation techniques for learning disabilities emphasize explicit, systematic instruction designed to address core cognitive deficits, such as phonological awareness in reading disorders or numerical magnitude processing in mathematical impairments, through intensive, individualized practice rather than rote memorization or compensatory strategies alone. These approaches draw from cognitive neuroscience principles, targeting neural pathways associated with specific skill gaps via repetitive drills, error correction, and multisensory reinforcement to foster automaticity and neural plasticity. Empirical support derives primarily from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, which indicate moderate effect sizes (typically 0.3 to 0.6) when interventions are delivered early and with high fidelity by trained specialists, though outcomes vary by disability type and individual factors like comorbidity with attention deficits.^[131]^[101] For dyslexia, characterized by deficits in word-level decoding, Orton-Gillingham-based programs—employing multisensory phonics instruction linking visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities—demonstrate consistent but modest gains in reading fluency and accuracy. A 2021 meta-analysis of 11 studies involving students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities reported a Hedges' g effect size of 0.41 for word reading and 0.28 for pseudoword reading post-intervention, with stronger effects in younger children and when sessions exceeded 100 hours total dosage. However, these gains often do not fully normalize performance relative to peers, and superiority over other structured literacy methods remains unproven in high-quality trials.^[164]^[170] In dyscalculia, remediation focuses on building foundational number sense through targeted exercises in subitizing, estimation, and arithmetic facts, often using concrete-representational-abstract progressions or computer-assisted drills. Systematic reviews identify seven evidence-based protocols, including direct instruction on math principles and procedures, yielding average effect sizes around 0.52 across intervention trials, with individualized mapping of deficits to specific modules enhancing persistence of gains into adolescence. Neuroimaging-informed approaches, such as training on approximate number system acuity via adaptive games, show promise in remediating intraparietal sulcus inefficiencies, though long-term transfer to complex problem-solving requires combined cognitive and behavioral elements.^[101]^[171]^[172] Dysgraphia remediation integrates orthographic knowledge training with fine-motor skill-building to improve letter formation, spacing, and written output speed, typically via daily practice sessions emphasizing grip mechanics, directional control, and self-monitoring checklists. Occupational therapy combined with explicit handwriting curricula produces effect sizes of 0.4-0.7 in legibility and endurance metrics, but isolated motor interventions underperform without concurrent phonological and compositional instruction, as evidenced by trials showing sustained deficits in idea generation absent cognitive-linguistic targeting. Overall, multimodal protocols—pairing remediation with progress monitoring via curriculum-based measures—outperform unguided practice, though access barriers and trainer expertise limit scalability in non-clinical settings.^[112]^[173]

Accommodations, Supports, and Their Limitations

Common accommodations for students with learning disabilities include extended time on assessments, alternative test formats such as reading aloud or small-group settings, and assistive technologies like text-to-speech software.^[174] These measures aim to mitigate functional limitations in areas such as reading, writing, or processing speed without altering the construct being measured.^[175] Supports often encompass individualized education programs (IEPs) that integrate these accommodations with targeted services like specialized tutoring or organizational aids, mandated under frameworks such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States. Meta-analyses of testing accommodations indicate modest score improvements for students with disabilities, but effects are not always specific to learning disabilities and can be comparable to gains seen in non-disabled peers receiving the same supports.^[176] ^[177] For instance, extended time benefits vary by disability type, with limited differential validity for learning disabilities in high-stakes contexts.^[178] Assistive technology interventions, including software for word prediction or speech recognition, show small to moderate effects on academic tasks for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities, though evidence is constrained by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes.^[179] Despite these provisions, accommodations primarily provide access rather than remediation, failing to address core cognitive deficits such as phonological processing weaknesses in dyslexia.^[180] Structured literacy interventions, which explicitly teach decoding and spelling skills, yield superior long-term reading proficiency compared to reliance on accommodations like audio alternatives, which do not enhance decoding abilities and may exclude students from skill-building.^[181] ^[182] Frequent accommodation use has been linked to reduced motivation for skill acquisition and negative associations with retention rates among college students with learning disabilities.^[174] ^[183] Individual variability in response, coupled with inconsistent empirical support for broad efficacy, underscores limitations in scalability and potential for fostering dependency over independence.^[184]

Controversies and Critical Perspectives

Validity of the Learning Disability Construct

The learning disability (LD) construct, intended to identify individuals with intrinsic cognitive processing deficits causing unexpected academic underachievement relative to age or IQ, has encountered persistent challenges regarding its empirical and theoretical validity. Early definitions, such as those from the 1960s onward, emphasized aptitude-achievement discrepancies, but subsequent research has highlighted the arbitrariness of cutoff criteria and the model's failure to differentiate LD from instructional inadequacies or cultural mismatches.^[63]^[23] For instance, the discrepancy approach often results in delayed identification until failure accumulates, a "wait-to-fail" dynamic critiqued for neglecting early intervention opportunities and inflating prevalence through regression to the mean in IQ-achievement difference scores.^[79]^[185] Alternative identification paradigms, including response-to-intervention (RTI) frameworks and patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW), have been proposed to address these shortcomings, yet they too lack robust empirical support for reliably delineating a distinct LD category. RTI, adopted in U.S. federal policy via the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reauthorization, classifies LD based on inadequate response to tiered instruction, but studies show high overlap between RTI non-responders and low achievers without presumed neurological specificity, questioning whether it validates an innate deficit rather than pedagogical or motivational factors.^[59] PSW models, which posit intra-individual cognitive discrepancies as diagnostic markers, demonstrate poor sensitivity and specificity in empirical validations, with agreement rates between methods as low as 40-50% across simulated datasets.^[186]^[187] Reviews of LD research protocols reveal inconsistent application of criteria, further undermining the construct's replicability across studies.^[188] Critics argue that the LD label functions more as a socially constructed category driven by policy incentives than a biologically discrete entity, with historical analyses tracing its emergence to post-Sputnik educational reforms prioritizing resource allocation over etiological precision.^[189]^[190] Empirical data indicate substantial heterogeneity within LD populations, including high comorbidity with intellectual disabilities and environmental risks, without unique biomarkers distinguishing LD from dimensional variations in cognitive ability.^[64] While subtypes like dyslexia exhibit moderate heritability and neuroanatomical correlates in meta-analyses, the broader LD umbrella—encompassing 5-15% of schoolchildren—fails to predict differential treatment outcomes beyond general achievement levels, suggesting over-reliance on the construct may obscure causal realities like instructional quality or socioeconomic influences.^[191]^[192] This has prompted calls for redefining LD through treatment validity, prioritizing instructional responsiveness over categorical diagnosis.^[193]

Medical Model vs. Ability-Based Critiques

The medical model conceptualizes learning disabilities as intrinsic neurological deficits manifesting in unexpected academic underachievement relative to intellectual potential, often identified through ability-achievement discrepancy or patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.^[25] This framework emphasizes diagnosis by professionals using psychometric assessments to pinpoint processing impairments, such as deficits in working memory or phonological processing, with interventions aimed at remediation or compensation.^[23] Empirical support includes genetic heritability estimates of 40-70% for conditions like dyslexia, derived from twin and family studies, underscoring a biological basis independent of environmental factors.^[88] Ability-based critiques, drawing from strengths-oriented paradigms, challenge the medical model's deficit focus as overly pathologizing natural cognitive variations, arguing it fosters stigma, dependency, and neglect of compensatory talents.^[194] Advocates like Michael L. Wehmeyer posit that deficit-driven special education limits self-determination by prioritizing impairments over assets, such as superior holistic thinking reported in some dyslexic individuals.^[194] These perspectives align with broader neurodiversity arguments viewing learning differences as evolutionary adaptations rather than disorders requiring normalization, critiquing diagnosis as a social control mechanism that medicalizes divergence.^[195] Critics of this approach, however, note its tendency to underemphasize verifiable functional costs, including elevated risks of unemployment (up to 50% higher for adults with LD) and comorbid mental health issues, where targeted deficit remediation demonstrably improves outcomes.^[88]^[196] Disproportionality in LD diagnoses across racial and socioeconomic groups—e.g., higher rates among Black and Hispanic students despite similar cognitive profiles—fuels ability-based contentions that the medical model amplifies cultural biases in assessment, conflating environmental inequities with innate pathology.^[88] In response, shifts toward response-to-intervention frameworks prioritize observable skill gaps over static labels, blending ability profiling with early supports to mitigate over-reliance on medical categorization.^[25] While strengths-based methods enhance motivation and resilience, meta-analyses affirm that ignoring core deficits yields inferior academic gains compared to hybrid approaches integrating both lenses.^[194] This tension reflects ongoing debates in disability studies, where academic sources critiquing the medical model often exhibit interpretive biases favoring constructionist views over neuroscientific data.^[197]

Policy-Driven Incentives and Over-Reliance on Labels

Policies such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States allocate federal grants to states proportional to the number of students identified as having disabilities, including learning disabilities (LD), which constitute the largest category of special education eligibility at approximately 34% of cases as of 2022.^[136] This formula creates financial incentives for schools and districts, as additional identifications yield higher per-pupil reimbursements from state and federal sources, often exceeding general education funding by 1.5 to 3 times depending on the jurisdiction.^[198] ^[199] Empirical analyses indicate that such fiscal structures correlate with elevated disability identification rates; for instance, a study examining state-level data found that increases in reimbursement rates for special education led to statistically significant rises in LD classifications, independent of underlying prevalence changes.^[200] The overall population of students served under IDEA has nearly doubled since its enactment in 1975, from 3.6 million to 7.3 million by 2021-22, with LD identifications rising in tandem despite stable or declining general academic performance metrics that might otherwise suggest instructional failures rather than innate deficits.^[201] Critics, including education policy analysts, argue this reflects a "bounty system" where districts maximize revenue by broadening LD criteria to encompass underachievers who might benefit more from rigorous phonics-based reading instruction or extended practice than from labeled accommodations.^[199] In states like New York, funding formulas explicitly tied to special education enrollment have been documented to encourage over-placement, yielding disproportionate costs—up to 2.5 times the average per-pupil expenditure—without commensurate outcome improvements.^[202] Over-reliance on LD labels exacerbates these dynamics by shifting focus from causal factors like inadequate early literacy curricula to diagnostic categorization, potentially fostering dependency on supports such as extended test time or untimed assignments that do not address core skill deficits.^[203] Experimental evidence shows that applying an LD label lowers teacher expectations and student performance, as educators anticipate poorer results and allocate fewer challenging tasks, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy rooted in stereotype rather than ability.^[204] This labeling effect persists into adulthood, where individuals report diminished self-efficacy and motivation, attributing failures to immutable traits rather than remediable gaps in foundational knowledge.^[203] While proponents of expansive labeling cite access to resources as justification, detractors highlight how vague diagnostic thresholds—often based on IQ-achievement discrepancies without neuroimaging validation—enable systemic avoidance of accountability for subpar general education, particularly in districts facing enrollment declines or performance pressures.^[205] Reforms proposed include funding models decoupled from headcounts, such as block grants or performance-based allocations, to prioritize evidence-based interventions over proliferation of categories.^[198]

Societal and Policy Contexts

Legal and Educational Policy Frameworks

In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), originally enacted as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 and reauthorized in 2004, mandates a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for eligible children aged 3–21 with disabilities, including specific learning disabilities (SLD) defined as disorders in one or more basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.^[206] IDEA requires individualized education programs (IEPs) tailored to the child's needs, placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, and eligibility determination through multidisciplinary evaluations, allowing either the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy model or response to intervention (RTI) approaches for SLD identification.^[206] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including public schools, and applies to students with learning disabilities whose impairments substantially limit major life activities such as learning; it requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations via 504 plans, such as extended time on tests or assistive technology, but does not guarantee FAPE or specialized instruction like IDEA.^[207]^[208] The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 extends similar antidiscrimination protections to public and private entities, including higher education and employment, ensuring accommodations for qualified individuals with learning disabilities, though K–12 applications often overlap with Section 504.^[209] Under IDEA's 2004 reauthorization, RTI frameworks emerged as a multitiered system of supports to identify and remediate learning difficulties early, involving high-quality classroom instruction (Tier 1), targeted small-group interventions (Tier 2), and intensive individualized support (Tier 3), with progress monitoring to determine SLD eligibility if responsiveness is inadequate; empirical analyses indicate RTI implementation has reduced overall special education identification by 11% and SLD rates by 15% in adopting districts, potentially mitigating over-identification but raising concerns about delayed services for true neurobiological cases.^[72]^[210] Internationally, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006 and ratified by over 180 countries, addresses learning disabilities under its broad disability definition via Article 24, which affirms the right to inclusive education at all levels, reasonable accommodations, and support to facilitate effective education without discrimination or exclusion from free primary and secondary schooling.^[211] CRPD emphasizes systemic changes for accessibility and individualized support, influencing national policies, though implementation varies, with empirical gaps in low-resource settings limiting empirical validation of uniform outcomes.^[212]

Cultural Narratives and Stigma

Prior to the formal recognition of learning disabilities in the mid-20th century, children exhibiting reading or mathematical difficulties were frequently misclassified as intellectually disabled or morally deficient, resulting in social exclusion or institutionalization.^[213] In 1963, psychologist Samuel A. Kirk introduced the term "learning disabilities" during a conference to denote developmental disorders in language, speech, reading, and related communication skills among children with average intelligence, explicitly to differentiate these cases from mental retardation and alleviate associated stigma.^[214] This reframing shifted cultural narratives from blanket incompetence to specific, remediable deficits, though it inadvertently introduced label-based stigma by marking affected individuals for special education segregation.^[215] Empirical research indicates persistent stigmatization of individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), manifesting in educational settings through lowered teacher and parental expectations, peer victimization, and physical separation into special classes.^[216] A systematic review of studies on SLD stigma identified medium correlations with diminished self-esteem (r = -0.39 across 9 effect sizes from 6 studies) and poorer psychological adjustment, including heightened anxiety and depression (52 effect sizes from 12 studies).^[216] In employment contexts, disclosure of an SLD label often evokes stereotypes of incompetence, contributing to hiring discrimination; experimental audits reveal that resumes signaling disabilities receive 26% fewer callbacks on average compared to non-disabled equivalents.^[217] Contemporary cultural narratives increasingly emphasize empowerment and strength-based views, such as campaigns portraying LDs as markers of equal intelligence with unique talents, as seen in public awareness events equating dyslexia with creativity.^[218] The neurodiversity paradigm extends this by conceptualizing LDs as natural cognitive variations rather than pathological deficits, aiming to eradicate stigma through rejection of medicalized language like "disorder."^[219] However, critiques highlight that this framing risks unrepresentativeness, primarily reflecting milder cases while overlooking severe impairments requiring targeted interventions, potentially fostering a false equivalence that stigmatizes those dependent on remedial support by invalidating evidence-based deficit models.^[220] Such perspectives may exacerbate self-stigma when individuals internalize narratives denying their challenges, as evidenced by studies linking SLD consciousness to reduced help-seeking behaviors.^[216]

References

[1]
What Are Specific Learning Disorders? - Psychiatry.org
Specific learning disorders, or learning disabilities, are neurodevelopmental disorders that are typically diagnosed in early school-aged children, ...
[2]
Learning Disability - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Mar 19, 2023 · Learning disabilities are a type of neurodevelopmental disorder that impedes normal ability to learn and perform academically. Learning ...
[3]
Specific Learning Disorder - PsychDB
Mar 29, 2021 · Specific Learning Disorder (also known as learning disorder or learning disability) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that begins during school-age.Primer · DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria
[4]
Overview of Learning Disorders - Pediatrics - Merck Manuals
Learning disorders involve impairments or difficulties in concentration or attention, language development, or visual and aural information processing.
[5]
Learning Disabilities & Disorders: What To Know - Cleveland Clinic
Learning disabilities (disorders) affect how your brain processes information. They include dyslexia, dysgraphia, nonverbal learning disorders and others.
[6]
The Polygenic Nature and Complex Genetic Architecture of Specific ...
From the genetics perspective, SLD is a complex disorder with a strong genetic component; heritability estimates from family and twin studies vary between 40–70 ...
[7]
What causes learning disabilities? | NICHD
Sep 11, 2018 · Research shows that risk factors may be present from birth and tend to run in families. In fact, children who have a parent with a learning ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
[8]
Learning Disorder or Learning Disability: Time to Rethink - PMC - NIH
Learning disorders (LDs) or specific learning disorders (SLDs) are a group of neurodevelopmental disorders that manifest during formal schooling.
[9]
Clinical Characteristics of Learning Disabilities - NCBI - NIH
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders. According to DSM-5, the diagnosis of a specific learning disorder includes the following symptoms: 1 ...
[10]
https://www.asha.org/advocacy/idea/04-law-specific-ld/
[11]
DSM-5 Changes in Diagnostic Criteria for Specific Learning ...
A: DSM-5 considers SLD to be a type of Neurodevelopmental Disorder3 that impedes the ability to learn or use specific academic skills (e.g., reading, writing, ...
[12]
[PDF] History of Learning Disabilities: Reflection on the Development of ...
Firstly, around 1877, Adolph Kussmaul was the first to identify reading inability and termed it 'word blindness', which introduced awareness that reading may ...
[13]
A Brief History of Dyslexia
It is 130 years since the term 'dyslexia' was coined by Rudolf Berlin, a German ophthalmologist and professor in Stuttgart.
[14]
A Timeline of Dyslexia Awareness
Oct 7, 2021 · The earliest detailed description of dyslexia that we have is from 1896 –Dr. Pringle Morgan in Sussex, England describes in his notes a bright ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
3.4: The History of Learning Disabilities - Social Sci LibreTexts
May 17, 2024 · Wiederholt (1974) identifies four periods in the history of learning disabilities. The foundational phase (1800–1930) emphasized basic scientific research ...
[16]
Samuel Kirk - Illinois Distributed Museum
In 1963, in a speech to an education conference, Professor Kirk coined and defined the term “learning disabilities.” His speech had led to major impact on ...
[17]
History - Learning Disabilities Association of America
The 1963 conference articulated the cornerstones on which the field of Learning Disabilities is based. ... Samuel Kirk's conference paper, was selected. A ...
[18]
Spotlight: NICHD Looks Back on 50 Years of Learning Disabilities ...
Jul 17, 2019 · About 50 years ago, the federal government recognized learning disabilities as conditions that impeded children's success in school and ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[19]
[PDF] K - ERIC - U.S. Department of Education
This collection chronicles the development of the field of special education through the writings of Samuel A. Kirk and comments by contributing scholars in ...<|separator|>
[20]
Clinical Characteristics of Intellectual Disabilities - NCBI - NIH
DSM-5 defines intellectual disabilities as neurodevelopmental disorders that begin in childhood and are characterized by intellectual difficulties.
[21]
Intellectual Disability vs. Learning Disability: Are They Different?
Apr 21, 2023 · Learning disabilities affect a child's ability to master specific skills, like reading, while overall intelligence levels remain unaffected.Intellectual disability · Learning disability · Causes · Managing IDs
[22]
What's the difference between learning disabilities and intellectual ...
A learning disability refers to weaknesses in certain academic skills. Reading, writing and math are the main ones.
[23]
Page 2: The IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Model - IRIS Center
The IQ-achievement discrepancy model is the traditional method used to determine whether a student has a learning disability and needs special education ...
[24]
Learning Difference or Low Ability?
Low ability refers to a person with a lower Intelligence Quotient (IQ) or ability score and profile. ... Skills in reading, writing, and math (general learning ...
[25]
The Three Methods of Learning Disability Identification
AAD defines an SLD as a discrepancy between an overall intellectual ability score (IQ) and academic achievement. This method typically identifies students ...
[26]
IQ Is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities - PubMed
On logical and empirical grounds, IQ test scores are not necessary for the definition of learning disabilities. Publication types. Research Support, Non-U.S. ...
[27]
Changes in DSM 5 and its Impact on Individuals with Learning ...
Specific Learning Disorders is defined as, “Learning disorders interfering with the acquisition and use of one or more of the following academic skills: oral ...<|separator|>
[28]
Why Having a Learning Disorder Doesn't Mean Low IQ
Sep 29, 2025 · Having a learning disorder does not equate to having a low IQ. IQ measures general intellectual potential, while academic testing reflects ...
[29]
Learning vs. Intellectual Disabilities - Echoing Hills
Intellectual disabilities limit intelligence and the ability to live independently, whereas learning disabilities do not affect intelligence.
[30]
Understanding The Difference: Intellectual Disability Vs. Learning ...
Intellectual disabilities affect a person's ability to learn, reason, and solve problems. Learning disabilities involve troubles with specific skills like ...<|separator|>
[31]
Intellectual Disability Vs. Learning Disability: What's The Difference?
Sep 13, 2025 · Intellectual disabilities affect broader areas of life, while learning disabilities target specific academic skills.
[32]
Learning Abilities and Disabilities: Generalist Genes, Specialist ...
Twin studies comparing identical and fraternal twins consistently show substantial genetic influence on individual differences in learning abilities.
[33]
Neurobiological Underpinnings of Math and Reading Learning ...
The primary goal of this review is to highlight current research and theories describing the neurobiological basis of math (MD), reading (RD), and comorbid ...
[34]
The Genetics of Reading Disabilities: From Phenotypes to ... - Frontiers
At least fourteen candidate genes have been proposed for dyslexia, but to date some have little supportive evidence. Within the three most-replicated dyslexia ...Missing: dyscalculia | Show results with:dyscalculia
[35]
Dyslexia and the Brain
As a way to understand the origin of these problems, neuroimaging studies have examined brain anatomy and function of people with and without dyslexia.
[36]
Prenatal Substance Abuse: Short- and Long-term Effects on the ...
Mar 1, 2013 · Prenatal alcohol exposure frequently is cited as the most common, preventable cause of nongenetic intellectual disability. Although IQ scores ...<|separator|>
[37]
Descriptive epidemiology of prenatal and perinatal risk factors in a ...
Nov 7, 2016 · Several prenatal and perinatal factors have been found to be associated with developmental dyslexia (reading disorder) in alphabetic language.
[38]
Association of Prenatal Substance Exposure With Attention-Deficit ...
Mar 11, 2022 · In this cohort study of 3138 children with and without ADHD, prenatal opioid exposure was significantly associated with the highest childhood risk of ADHD ...
[39]
Neurobehavioral disorders among children born to mothers ...
Dec 18, 2024 · We found overall increased risks of intellectual disability in children exposed to intrauterine illicit substances and increased risks of ADHD ...
[40]
Prenatal Risk Factors for Developmental Delay in Newcomer Children
Prenatal risk factors include chronic maternal illness, certain maternal infections, toxin exposures and nutritional deficiencies. Risk factors in the perinatal ...
[41]
Prenatal Risk Factors for Adverse Developmental Outcome in ...
Mar 25, 2019 · In this review, we aim to evaluate the significance of selected prenatal risk factors related to prematurity, such as smoking during pregnancy, ...Abstract · Introduction · Results · Discussion
[42]
Population impact of preterm birth and low birth weight on ... - NIH
Summary PAFs for preterm birth and/or LBW were 55% for CP, 10%–20% for ASD, ID, LD, and other developmental delay, and less than 5% for ADHD and behavioral- ...
[43]
Meta-Analysis of Neurobehavioral Outcomes in Very Preterm and/or ...
Aug 1, 2009 · Very preterm and/or VLBW children have moderate-to-severe deficits in academic achievement, attention problems, and internalizing behavioral problems and poor ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[44]
Learning Disabilities in Extremely Low Birth Weight Children and ...
Jun 27, 2016 · Meta-analysis of neurobehavioral outcomes in very preterm and/or very low birth weight children. Pediatrics 124, 717–728. doi: 10.1371 ...
[45]
Developmental dyslexia in children with perinatal exposure to hypoxia
This research indicates that perinatal oxygen deprivation is a significant risk factor for dyslexia. Among the various perinatal abnormalities analysed (e.g. ...Missing: complications | Show results with:complications
[46]
Relative risk of perinatal complications in common childhood ...
Research using the MPS has revealed that a combination of perinatal complications can increase the relative risk of educational difficulty by up to 6.35 times.
[47]
Aetiology of learning disability - ScienceDirect.com
Perinatal factors can cause a learning disability; these include asphyxia/hypoxia at birth, mechanical birth trauma, hypoglycaemia and prematurity. Postnatal ...
[48]
The interface between genetics and psychology - NIH
Developmental dyslexia runs in families, and twin studies have confirmed that there is a substantial genetic contribution to poor reading.Missing: interplay | Show results with:interplay
[49]
Insights From Identical Twins - Learn Genetics Utah
Twin studies have identified some traits that have a strong genetic component, including reading disabilities like dyslexia. Other traits, like arthritis, are ...
[50]
Many Layers of Dyslexia: Gene Discovery is Just the Beginning
The first molecular genetics study that examined the interaction between genes and environment on reading found that genomic effects of the gene DYX1C1, a ...Missing: interplay | Show results with:interplay
[51]
Interaction between risk SNPs of Developmental Dyslexia ... - medRxiv
Apr 28, 2023 · The current study assessed potential gene-environmental (G×E) interactions on reading ability in 1477 school-aged children.
[52]
Gene by environment interactions influencing reading disability and ...
However, previous research indicates that RD and ADHD enter into opposite gene by environment (G × E) interactions.
[53]
Gene-environment interaction analysis of school quality ... - Nature
Mar 1, 2024 · We study to what extent schools increase or decrease environmental and genetic influences on educational performance.
[54]
Epigenetics and learning: How the environment shapes gene ...
Feb 12, 2021 · Environmental cues such as childhood parenting conditions and experiences, and adolescent experiences and lifestyle may affect the way some genes are expressed.
[55]
Gene and Environment Interactions in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
The knowledge that both the genetic patrimony and lifetime environmental exposures define disease risk is well accepted.
[56]
Generalist genes and learning disabilities: a multivariate genetic ...
Using a representative sample of 4000 pairs of 12-year-old twins from the UK Twins Early Development Study, we investigated the genetic and environmental ...
[57]
Gene–environment interaction on neural mechanisms of ...
One way to address the question of how environment and genes interact during the development of dyslexia is to use specific measures of brain activation as ...
[58]
[PDF] Gene x Environment Interactions in Developmental Dyslexia
Jan 1, 2009 · Recent studies that have tested for G x E interactions with measured genes and/or measured environments have had more success. Ideally, tests of ...
[59]
A Misuse of IQ Scores: Using the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency ...
Aug 1, 2018 · Specific learning disability is an umbrella term that describes a condition where individuals display low achievement that cannot be explained ...
[60]
Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school ...
We classified children as LD on the basis of a WISC-III Full Scale IQ of 82 or higher and a 22-point discrepancy between IQ and any WRAT-R achievement score.
[61]
Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities
These results provide little evidence supporting the validity of the IQ-discrepancy classification fundamental to public policy concerning students with ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms<|separator|>
[62]
[PDF] Integration of Theory and Feasibility in Learning Disability ...
The aptitude/IQ achievement discrepancy model was proposed in the 1960s and has historically been the most widely used approach for identifying students with ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[63]
A Critique of the IQ / Achievement Discrepancy Model for Identifying ...
Nov 29, 2009 · The current paper (a) provides a brief review of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, (b) reviews concerns of using intelligence tests within a RTI framework,Missing: definition evidence
[64]
Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual ... - NIH
There is extensive research on the validity of IQ-achievement discrepancy methods. This research shows that it is difficult to differentiate groups of children ...
[65]
Cognitive Discrepancy Models for Specific Learning Disabilities ...
Identification decisions utilizing IQ-achievement discrepancies are unreliable at the individual level because the group membership of students scoring near ...
[66]
[PDF] Specific Learning Disability
Within the last decade, the IQ-Achievement Discrepancy model has received increasing criticism due to the fact that it takes time for a discrepancy to develop, ...
[67]
more evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy ... - PubMed
In this article we discuss research bearing on the traditional use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to define specific reading disability.Missing: learning | Show results with:learning
[68]
[PDF] The Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities:
remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
[69]
How a disgraced method of diagnosing learning disabilities persists ...
Nov 15, 2023 · A 'discrepancy model' that relies on IQ tests to identify dyslexic students lingers on, despite decades of critique.
[70]
IQ‐Achievement Discrepancy for Identification of Disabilities in ...
Jun 28, 2019 · This article examines the validity of IQ-achievement discrepancy and low achievement as criteria for the identification of disabilities in ...
[71]
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy for Identification of Disabilities in ... - NIH
This article examines the validity of IQ-achievement discrepancy and low achievement as criteria for the identification of disabilities in Spanish-speaking ...
[72]
Page 3: The Response-to-Intervention Approach (RTI) - IRIS Center
In the RTI approach, struggling students' skills are monitored to determine whether they show adequate growth (referred to as responsiveness)
[73]
Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic ...
We review evidence for the processes underlying RTI, including screening and progress monitoring assessments, evidence-based interventions, and schoolwide ...
[74]
Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities
A key element of an RTI approach is the provision of early intervention when students first experience academic difficulties, with the goal of improving the ...Rti As An Eligibility... · Implementation Issues · Research
[75]
Response to Intervention (RTI)
RTI is a prevention model using research-based interventions to prevent academic failure, using a tiered system with individualized instruction.
[76]
[PDF] 894 A Review and Synthesis of the Response to Intervention (RtI ...
RtI involves early intervention for struggling students, using research-based interventions and assessments to identify students for special education and ...
[77]
[PDF] The Effects of Response to Intervention on Disability Identification ...
RTI reduced special education identification by 1.4% and SLD identification by 0.5%. It caused reading gains for Black students, and no other achievement ...
[78]
Page 4: The Rationale for RTI: Early Intervening and Identification of ...
RTI is a preventive approach to identify struggling students early, providing early intervention and reducing false positives for learning disabilities.
[79]
[PDF] A CRITIQUE AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL - ERIC
Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being pro- posed as an alternative model for making decisions about the pres- ence or absence of specific learning ...
[80]
Core Principles: Response to Intervention (RTI)
Research studies indicate that lack of fidelity of RTI implementation ( Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., 2017), as well as the use of different methods and measures for ...
[81]
“Waiting to Fail” Redux: Understanding Inadequate Response ... - NIH
First, there is little knowledge about the most productive interface between the three tiers of intervention in an RTI model. For example, does coordination and ...
[82]
Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to ...
This paper considers whether RTI-based assessment models meet ethical and legal standards for acceptable assessment practices.
[83]
Rising prevalence of parent-reported learning disabilities among ...
From 2016 to 2023, the prevalence of ever-diagnosed LD increased from 7.86% to 9.15%, while that of current-diagnosed LD rose from 7.32% to 8.66%, representing ...
[84]
Prevalence and Trends in Diagnosed Learning Disability Among US ...
Jul 10, 2023 · The aim of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the prevalence of LD and its long-term trend among US children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years from ...
[85]
Vast numbers of kids are wrongly branded with a learning disability
Oct 30, 2024 · Yet surveys have indicated that 10 to 16 per cent of students are perceived by their teachers to have learning difficulties and extra support ...
[86]
A Critique of the IQ / Achievement Discrepancy Model for Identifying ...
Aug 6, 2025 · The current paper (a) provides a brief review of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, (b) reviews concerns of using intelligence tests within a RTI framework,
[87]
[PDF] Schools and the Challenge of LD and ADHD Misdiagnoses
Youngsters manifesting learning problems, misbehavior, and emotional upset commonly are assigned psychiatric labels that were created to categorize.
[88]
Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race ...
Statistics like these raise concerns that students are identified with a learning disability according to characteristics unrelated to their cognitive ...
[89]
a commentary on the IDA definition of dyslexia
Jun 15, 2024 · Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition.
[90]
Defining and understanding dyslexia: past, present and future - PMC
ABSTRACT. Dyslexia is a difficulty in learning to decode (read aloud) and to spell. DSM5 classifies dyslexia as one form of neurodevelopmental disorder.
[91]
Annual Research Review: The nature and classification of reading ...
Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed'. Acknowledging phonological deficits ...
[92]
[PDF] An Overview of Dyslexia: Definition, Characteristics, Assessment ...
Sep 3, 2019 · Developmental dyslexia is a condition present in individuals who have word-level difficulties in reading decoding and spelling; the most.
[93]
The neurological basis of developmental dyslexia - Oxford Academic
This article reviews evidence accumulated to date that favours a dysfunction of neural systems known to participate in the normal acquisition and achievement ...
[94]
A review of the neurobiological basis of dyslexia in the adult ...
Results from the review show that dyslexia is highly heritable and displays polygenic transmission. Likewise, adult neuroimaging studies found structural, ...
[95]
Dyslexia: neurobiology, clinical features, evaluation and management
One theory was that the development of dyslexia is preceded by a failure of neuronal migration (10) from the ventricular zone up towards the cortical plate.
[96]
Subtypes of developmental dyslexia: Testing the predictions of the ...
Apr 17, 2012 · Overall, 56.6% of children with dyslexia met criteria for either pure or relative phonological dyslexia and 10.1% for pure or relative surface ...
[97]
Are there distinct subtypes of developmental dyslexia? - Frontiers
Jan 2, 2025 · Our findings suggest that school-aged children with DD can be categorized into different subtypes with distinct neurocognitive characteristics.
[98]
Understanding Dyslexia in the Context of Developmental Language ...
First, on average, children with a family history of dyslexia showed early and persistent deficits in phonology compared with their peers with no family history ...
[99]
The Prevalence of Dyslexia: A New Approach to its Estimation - PMC
For example, if the individual is female, the chance of having dyslexia goes down, from 5 to 3 percent; if male, the chance goes up, from 5 to 7 percent. Co- ...
[100]
Identifying Dyslexia in the Early Years - Auspeld
15 Feb 2018 · Children can be diagnosed with dyslexia well before they turn eight if they have struggled with the acquisition of skills in reading (and spelling) for an ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[101]
The Diagnosis and Treatment of Dyscalculia - PMC - PubMed Central
3–7% of all children, adolescents, and adults suffer from dyscalculia. Severe, persistent difficulty performing arithmetical calculations leads to marked ...
[102]
Dyscalculia: What It Is, Causes, Symptoms & Treatment
There are two main criteria that the DSM-5 lists for math-related symptoms of specific learning disorder (with more about those criteria immediately below).
[103]
Diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorder diagnosis
May 26, 2022 · A summary of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for specific learning disorder diagnosis: Criteria A Ongoing difficulties in the school-age years learning and using ...
[104]
Persistent Differences in Brain Structure in Developmental Dyscalculia
Jul 16, 2020 · Affected people show persistent deficits in number processing, which are associated with aberrant brain activation and structure.Introduction · Materials and Methods · Results · Discussion
[105]
[PDF] Cognitive neuroscience of dyscalculia and math learning disabilities.
Oct 21, 2021 · This chapter reviews current theories and knowledge of MD and its neurobiological basis from a systems neuroscience perspective. The chapter.
[106]
Neurobiology of numerical learning - ScienceDirect.com
Genetic contributions to numerical cognition and developmental dyscalculia (DD). Individual differences in mathematical performance have been known for a long ...Neurobiology Of Numerical... · Highlights · Abstract<|separator|>
[107]
Developmental Dyscalculia in Relation to Individual Differences in ...
May 23, 2024 · Developmental dyscalculia is usually defined as significant difficulties in learning mathematics that are not the result of low IQ, sensory impairments, or ...
[108]
How is dyscalculia different from other maths learning difficulties?
Dyscalculia is a specific, lasting difficulty mainly affecting understanding of numbers, quantities, and estimating, unlike more common SpLDs in math.
[109]
Dyscalculia and typical math achievement are associated with ...
Dyscalculia and typical math achievement are associated with individual differences in number specific executive function. Eric D Wilkey. Eric D Wilkey. 1 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[110]
Cognitive neuroscience of dyscalculia and math learning disabilities.
Dyscalculia or mathematical disability (MD) is a specific learning disability characterized by difficulties in processing numerical and mathematical ...
[111]
The Research and Neuroscience of Dyscalculia
Sep 9, 2025 · Taken together, brain imaging confirms that dyscalculia has a biological basis while reminding us that it is not a unitary or pathological ...2. Early Research... · 3. Cognitive Skill Deficits · 4. Brain Imaging Findings
[112]
Disorder of written expression and dysgraphia: definition, diagnosis ...
At its broadest definition, dysgraphia is a disorder of writing ability at any stage, including problems with letter formation/legibility, letter spacing, ...
[113]
Developmental Dysgraphia: An Overview and Framework for ...
In this article we offer a framework for studying developmental dysgraphias (including both spelling and handwriting deficits)
[114]
[PDF] Dysgraphia: How It Affects A Student's Performance and What Can ...
The characteristics of dysgraphia are varied and students can exhibit any one or more of these characteristics (see box, “Characteristics of Dysgraphia”).
[115]
Cognitive Profiles of Developmental Dysgraphia - Frontiers
Nov 21, 2018 · Developmental dysgraphia is a disorder characterized by difficulties in the acquisition of writing/spelling skills despite adequate schooling, ...
[116]
Dysgraphia - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Agraphia or dysgraphia, in the context of other neurological symptoms, can be cognitive, motor, or visuospatial. It can be a useful anatomical diagnostic clue ...
[117]
Research shows brain differences in children with dyslexia and ...
Apr 28, 2015 · Children with dyslexia and dysgraphia showed less white matter connections and more functional connections to gray matter locations.
[118]
Neural bases of orthographic long-term memory and working ...
Dec 17, 2015 · Post-stroke dysgraphia can reflect impairments in orthographic long-term and/or working memory. Rapp et al. analyse the lesion distribution ...
[119]
Developmental coordination disorder and dysgraphia: signs and ...
Jul 8, 2019 · Prevalence varies from 1.8% to 6.9%, and 1 in 2 children with DCD exhibit dysgraphia. Confirming suspected DCD requires a multidisciplinary ...
[120]
IDEA Specific Learning Disability - gov.ed.sites
No information is available for this page. · Learn why
[121]
New to LD - Learning Disabilities Association of America
Learning disabilities that affect an individual's understanding of what they read or of spoken language. The ability to express one's self with oral language ...
[122]
Specific Learning Disability | East Allen County Schools
Listening comprehension disability is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin and has a continuum of severity. It is characterized by ...
[123]
[PDF] Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in Plain Language
Listening Comprehension refers to understanding the implicit and explicit meanings of words and sentences of spoken language. It also includes the ability to.
[124]
https://www.asha.org/advocacy/idea/idea-part-b-issue-brief-identification-of-specific-learning-disabilities/
[125]
Nonverbal learning disability - PubMed
Nonverbal learning disability (NLD) is described as a subtype of specific learning disability where the source of the disability is a difficulty in processing ...
[126]
Report of a Work Group on Nonverbal Learning Disability
Although extant research points to nonverbal learning disability (NVLD) as a distinct disorder, it is not included in the diagnostic nomenclatures, ...
[127]
Estimated Prevalence of Nonverbal Learning Disability Among ...
Apr 10, 2020 · This study showed that 2.2 million to 2.9 million children and adolescents may have nonverbal learning disability.
[128]
Estimating the prevalence of Non-Verbal Learning Disability (NVLD ...
Apr 8, 2024 · This report is the first attempt to estimate NVLD prevalence, using two sets of diagnostic criteria, in a large sample of over 11,000 children ...
[129]
Systematic Review: Nonverbal Learning Disability - PubMed
Apr 20, 2021 · Objective: To summarize the current state of the research literature on nonverbal learning disability (NVLD), including criteria used to define ...
[130]
Types of Specific Learning Disability - IntechOpen
The chapter centers around seven learning disabilities namely, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia ... Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher. USA: ...
[131]
Understanding, Educating, and Supporting Children with Specific ...
They can be manifested as primary conditions—as difficulties in acquiring specific academic skills—or as secondary conditions, comorbid to other developmental ...
[132]
Children at Risk of Specific Learning Disorder: A Study on ... - NIH
Jun 22, 2024 · SLD is a condition that impairs one or more aspects of academic functioning, including reading (dyslexia), writing (dysgraphia), and arithmetic ...2.1. Assessment Tools · 3. Results · 4. DiscussionMissing: pitfalls | Show results with:pitfalls
[133]
Prevalence of specific learning disability in children and... - LWW
The prevalence of SLD worldwide is 1 in 100. 2 In India, the prevalence of SLD varies from 3% to 10%.
[134]
Specific Learning Disabilities: The Family Physician's Role | AAFP
Nov 15, 2019 · Specific learning disabilities are a group of disorders that impede a child's ability to learn and include dyscalculia, dysgraphia, and dyslexia ...
[135]
Prevalence of Learning Disabilities - NCBI - NIH
The estimate for learning disabilities in 2011–2012 was 8.0 percent for children of ages 3–17, with 4 percent rated as mild and 4 percent rated as moderate or ...ESTIMATES OF LEARNING... · TRENDS IN THE RATES OF... · DISCUSSION
[136]
COE - Students With Disabilities
Among students receiving special education and/or related services, the most common category of disability was specific learning disabilities (32 percent).
[137]
Learning Disabilities Statistics: An Overview for 2025
Jan 31, 2025 · Nearly one in seven students worldwide faces some form of learning disability, highlighting the widespread nature of these conditions.
[138]
Special educational needs in England, Academic year 2024/25
Jun 12, 2025 · Over 1.7 million pupils in England have special educational needs (SEN) · The percentage of pupils with an EHC plan has increased to 5.3%, from ...<|separator|>
[139]
How common is learning disability in the UK? - Mencap
There are 1.5 million people with learning disabilities in the UK. About 2.16% of adults and 2.5% of children are believed to have a learning disability.
[140]
Gender differences in special educational needs identification - Daniel
Nov 12, 2023 · Across different low-incidence disability categories, we observed that males consistently have a higher proportion of SEN identification.
[141]
What federal education data shows about students with disabilities ...
Jul 24, 2023 · About two-thirds of disabled students (65%) are male, while 34% are female, according to data from the 2021-22 school year. Overall student ...
[142]
Indicator 9: Students With Disabilities
The percentage served varied by race/ethnicity: it was highest for those who were American Indian/Alaska Native (17 percent), followed by those who were Black ( ...
[143]
Disproportionate Identification of Students of Color in Special ...
In many situations, students of color are less likely than their white peers to be identified and to receive special education services.<|separator|>
[144]
Education and Socioeconomic Status Factsheet
Increasing evidence supports the link between lower SES and learning disabilities or other negative psychological outcomes that affect academic achievement. Low ...Education And Socioeconomic... · Ses And Educational Issues · Ses And Academic Achievement
[145]
Socioeconomic dissociations in the neural and cognitive bases of ...
Socioeconomic status (SES) moderates which deficits explain reading disorders (RDs). RD in higher-SES children is best explained by reduced phonological skills.
[146]
[PDF] Examining the Correlation Between Special Education Eligibility and ...
Furthermore, studies have shown that children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more susceptible to learning disabilities, developmental delays, and ...
[147]
Disability & Socioeconomic Status
Lower levels of SES have consistently been correlated with poor health and lower quality of life. The existence of a disability can contribute to emotional ...
[148]
The relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and ...
Aug 24, 2022 · In broad terms, our results indicate that adults with intellectual disability in Jersey are more likely to occupy lower socioeconomic positions ...
[149]
The cognitive basis of dyslexia in school‐aged children: A multiple ...
This study focuses on the role of numerous cognitive skills such as phonological awareness (PA), rapid automatized naming (RAN), visual and selective attention ...
[150]
Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning ...
Aug 10, 2025 · A meta-analysis of 32 studies was conducted to examine the cognitive processing differences between students with SLD and typically achieving peers.
[151]
The Cognitive Profile of Math Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis Based on ...
If not identified and treated at an early stage, math difficulties (MD) can persistently affect academic functioning (Shalev et al., 2005; Morgan et al., 2009) ...
[152]
Learning and Cognitive Disorders - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
The purpose of this article is to provide a select review of treatments for addressing reading disorder, mathematics disorder, disorder of written expression, ...
[153]
Understand the Issues - National Center for Learning Disabilities
The Nation's Report Card, Reading and Math Proficiency for Students with Learning Disabilities by Race and Ethnicity [Unpublished raw data]. U.S. Department of ...
[154]
The academic achievement gap between students with and without ...
Sep 18, 2024 · Authors reported that students with specific learning difficulties demonstrated significantly lower reading achievement than peers with speech ...
[155]
Interventions for children and adolescents with specific learning ...
Jul 18, 2025 · In this review, we discuss what has been learned about how to effectively support individuals with SLDs in reading and three common co-occurring ...
[156]
Education and employment outcomes of young adults with a history ...
Young people with a history of DLD tend, as a group, to have lower educational outcomes than their peers. They face barriers and disadvantage as they attempt ...
[157]
[PDF] Effects of postsecondary education on employment outcomes of ...
Mar 17, 2023 · BACKGROUND: Helping young adults with specific learning disabilities (SLD) attend college increases their chances of joining the workforce ...<|separator|>
[158]
State of Learning Disabilities: Navigating the Transition to Adulthood
The State of Learning Disabilities: Navigating the Transition to Adulthood explores the experiences of young adults with LD.
[159]
Exploring Psychological Distress Among Individuals with Specific ...
Ample evidence demonstrates that individuals with learning disabilities experience significantly more emotional difficulties compared to those without learning ...
[160]
The High Rates of Comorbidity among Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Mar 11, 2024 · The most seen overlap and confluence in the US is that of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), which focuses primarily on the significant ...
[161]
Associations between neurodivergence, learning disabilities ... - NIH
An association between obesity and neurodivergence was found [relative risk ratio (RRR) = 1.64 95% CI = 1.54–1.76, P < 0.001]. The association with overweight ...
[162]
Association of intellectual disability with overall and type-specific ...
Feb 6, 2023 · Individuals with intellectual disability had increased risks of early-onset CVD, in particular, for cerebrovascular disease, stroke, heart failure, and deep ...
[163]
https://oxfordre.com/education/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1222
[164]
Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for ...
Feb 22, 2021 · We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD.
[165]
Structured Literacy Compared to Balanced Literacy: A meta-analysis
Dec 29, 2024 · These findings suggest that “structured literacy” approaches tend to yield larger positive effects on student learning compared to “balanced literacy” ...
[166]
PROOF POINTS: Leading dyslexia treatment isn't a magic bullet ...
Oct 10, 2022 · The larger 2022 analysis of 53 reading interventions had a higher bar for study quality and only one Orton-Gillingham study made the cut.Missing: efficacy | Show results with:efficacy
[167]
Research - National Institute for Direct Instruction
Coughlin's meta-analysis focused on 20 studies of Direct Instruction that employed a randomized control group design. Strong positive effects were found ...
[168]
Effect of Multisensory Training on Writing Skills of Children with ...
Mar 19, 2020 · Conclusion: The result of this study shows there is a significant improvement in writing skills for dysgraphic children after multisensory ...
[169]
Successful Strategies for Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities
Successful strategies include direct instruction, learning strategy instruction, multi-sensory approach, breaking learning into steps, feedback, and ...
[170]
Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for ...
We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD.
[171]
[PDF] Interventions for Students With Developmental Dyscalculia - ERIC
There are seven evidence-based interventions for DD, all effective in improving math learning. Interventions addressing math facts, procedures, and principles ...
[172]
Interventions to improve mathematical performance for children with ...
Examples of targeted mathematics interventions that have been evaluated with a range of randomised and quasi‐randomised methods include: Pirate Math, Maths ...
[173]
Interventions for Students with Writing Disabilities - LD@School
Mar 17, 2015 · STRATEGIES FOR LETTER FORMATION AND SPACING · Student Alphabet Warm-Up for mapping sounds and letters · Teacher modeling of directionality and ...Debunking The Myths: If You... · What Is Involved In Written... · Interventions For...
[174]
Educational Accommodations for Students With Disabilities - Frontiers
Dec 5, 2021 · The most common accommodations were extended time to complete tests and assignments, and having tests read aloud and in a small group setting.
[175]
Academic Accommodations for Students with Learning Disabilities
Described below are some of the functional limitations that may require accommodations. A student with a learning disability may have one or more of these ...Missing: research | Show results with:research
[176]
(PDF) A meta-analysis of testing accommodations for students with ...
Using meta-analysis and meta-regression to summarize previous research, this study examined whether test accommodations differentially boost test scores of ...
[177]
Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Extra time as a Test ...
Apr 7, 2010 · Results indicated that typically achieving students provided test accommodations outperformed students with LD provided the same accommodations.
[178]
Full article: Effects of disability-related services, accommodations ...
Apr 5, 2023 · In fact, the effects of testing accommodations among students with disabilities in general were more obvious compared to LD and ADHD students.
[179]
Assistive Technology Interventions for Adolescents and Adults with ...
Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis.
[180]
Structured Literacy: Effective Instruction for Students with Dyslexia ...
Evidence is strong that the majority of students learn to read better with structured teaching of basic language skills, and that the components and methods ...
[181]
Accommodating Reading Comprehension with Listening: Good Idea?
Mar 1, 2025 · Replacing reading with listening is not recommended as it limits learning and does not improve reading skills. It is an act of exclusion, not ...
[182]
How Dyslexia Interventions Can Make or Break Reading Proficiency
Jan 24, 2025 · Students who receive Structured Literacy interventions demonstrate significantly higher reading proficiency rates. Specifically ...Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
[183]
[PDF] How Important are Accommodations? Examining the Retention of ...
For students with learning disabilities, there was a significant and negative association between accommodation use and retention. Other backgrounds and college ...
[184]
(PDF) Opportunities and Limitations of Accommodations and ...
Separate room accommodation is effective for some students but negatively effects others. Individual differences may be the reason for inconsistent research ...
[185]
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1017/jgc.2012.22
[186]
[PDF] a Critique of the PSW Model for SLD Identification
We conclude that at the present time there is insufficient support within the empirical literature to support adoption of the PSW method for SLD identification.
[187]
The Effect of Achievement Test Selection on Identification of ... - NIH
Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW) ...
[188]
[PDF] Learning Disability Identification Criteria and Reporting in Empirical ...
This review documents the learning disabilities (LD) identification criteria and procedures utilized in empirical research including students with LD published ...
[189]
The Myths of Learning Disabilities: The Social Construction of ... - jstor
Nearly two-and-a-half million U.S. school chil- dren are currently diagnosed with learning disabilities (LD), an in- crease of roughly 150% in fifteen years. In ...
[190]
Why Is There Learning Disabilities? A Critical Analysis of the Birth of ...
Jun 1, 2010 · Learning disabilities in the US was constructed as a way of understanding certain kinds of low achieving children by those who accepted the ...
[191]
Learning Disability Identification Criteria and Reporting in Empirical ...
Sep 26, 2016 · This review documents the learning disabilities (LD) identification criteria and procedures utilized in empirical research including ...
[192]
Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of Learning ...
This article reviews the validity of models based on (a) aptitude—achievement discrepancies, (b) low achievement, (c) intraindividual differences, ...<|separator|>
[193]
construct for identifying learning disabilities - jstor
Abstract. The purpose of this article is to revisit the issue of treatment validity as a framework for identifying learning dis- abilities.
[194]
Wehmeyer Michael L. 2019. Strengths-based approaches to ...
1Deficit-based models have shaped the special education framework and adversely impacted the services offered to children with disabilities.<|separator|>
[195]
The Human Spectrum: A Critique of “Neurodiversity” - Maynard - 2025
Apr 25, 2024 · This paper represents a sociological approach to autism spectrum disorder that critiques the terms neurodiverse and it obverse, neurotypical.
[196]
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ888356
[197]
The Disability Movement's Critique of Rehabilitation's Medical Model
Disability advocates are angered over the propensity toward “normalization” inherent in the medical model because disability for them needs no adjustment or ...
[198]
How Special Education Funding Actually Works
Apr 27, 2023 · Is the federal government required to contribute 40 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities? ... Not exactly. The federal ...
[199]
Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment
... incentives created by the "bounty system" - whereby most states pay school districts more money for each student diagnosed with a disability. Greene and ...
[200]
The impact of fiscal incentives on student disability rates
Critics claim that vague definitions of disabling conditions coupled with financial incentives have pushed student disability rates to the current levels at ...Missing: overdiagnosis | Show results with:overdiagnosis
[201]
The Number of Students in Special Education Has Doubled in the ...
Jul 31, 2023 · The number of students in special education in the U.S. has doubled, from 3.6 million in 1976-77 to almost 7.3 million in 2021-22.Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
[202]
Perverse Incentives, High Costs and Poor Outcomes
Nov 25, 2020 · New York's funding system has created perverse incentives that encourage school officials to place students in special education to draw increased revenues.
[203]
“Specific Learning Disorder": The Case Against Labeling
Mar 18, 2021 · The label may lead to a sense of helplessness in the labeled person. · The label may stigmatize the labeled person, thereby reducing learning ...
[204]
Does the 'Learning Disability' label lower teachers' performance ...
Mar 16, 2023 · To summarise, teachers lower their performance expectations for LD labelled students, and SETs might be especially prone to these adverse ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[205]
The Nature and Role of Theory in Learning Disability Labeling
Apr 9, 2010 · Underachieving students who no longer met the stricter criteria for mental disability or behavior disorder spilled into learning disability ...
[206]
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities.
[207]
Section 504 | U.S. Department of Education
Section 504 helps ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to educational opportunities.
[208]
IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA: Which laws do what - Understood.org
IDEA is the law that provides special education. · Section 504 is the law that provides 504 plans for eligible K–12 students. · ADA provides freedom from ...
[209]
Guide to Disability Rights Laws - ADA.gov
This guide provides an overview of Federal civil rights laws that ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities.Missing: learning | Show results with:learning
[210]
The Effects of Response to Intervention on Disability Identification ...
Aug 5, 2024 · RTI adoption reduced special education identification by 1.4 percentage points (11%) and SLD identification by 0.5 percentage points (15%). RTI ...Missing: criticisms diagnosis
[211]
Article 24 - Education
Article 24 ensures inclusive education for persons with disabilities, equal access to general education, and that they are not excluded from primary or ...
[212]
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities | OHCHR
Forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.
[213]
A History of Developmental Disabilities | Fear and Suspicion - MN.gov
As a result, families with a child labeled "feebleminded were stigmatized as morally bad or genetically flawed, and advised to institutionalize them or keep ...Missing: narratives | Show results with:narratives
[214]
A history of learning disabilities and ADHD - Understood.org
1963 In Chicago, psychologist Samuel A. Kirk becomes the first to use the term “learning disability” at an education conference. 1964 Association for ...
[215]
Turning the Educability Narrative: Samuel A. Kirk at the Intersection ...
Jun 1, 2010 · Kirk first coined the term learning disability in a speech in 1960 ( ... stigmatized meaning as the dark foil of the new learning disability.
[216]
A Systematic Review of the Consequences of Stigma and ...
Research has demonstrated that individuals with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) are vulnerable to stigmatization. The purpose of this systematic review ...Missing: reliance | Show results with:reliance
[217]
Disability discrimination in hiring: A systematic review - ScienceDirect
In this systematic review, we review 69 existing experimental research studies on disability discrimination in hiring, published between June 1972 and January ...
[218]
[PDF] Identifying the Negative Stigma Associated with Having a Learning ...
The fact that discrimination and stereotyping in relation to those with learning disabilities are largely under researched supports the point that this minority ...
[219]
The Neurodiversity Approach(es): What Are They and What Do They ...
This paper presents the concepts of “neurodiversity” and the “neurodiversity approaches” towards disability and discusses how confusion regarding the meaning ...
[220]
Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement - SpringerLink
Nov 8, 2019 · Several vocal autistic people and parents have complained that the movement is made up mostly of less impaired individuals who do not represent ...