Learning Disability Identification Criteria and Reporting in Empirical Research: A Review of 2001-2013

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob L. Williams ◽  
Jeremy Miciak ◽  
Laura McFarland ◽  
Jade Wexler
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Disability Identification

scholarly journals Counting Differently: Assessing Mathematics Achievement in Signing Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Through a Unique Lens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Claudia Pagliaro ◽  
SaraBeth Sullivan ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Achievement ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Mathematics Performance ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Disability Identification ◽  
Hearing Children

Limited studies exist that connect using signed language with mathematics performance in deaf and hard of hearing children. Here we examine 257 participants and compare their results on the NWEA MAP to their results on an assessment of ASL skills. We found that better ASL skills tended to result in better MAP performance. These results are moderated by factors such as age, gender, parental hearing status, and learning disability identification.

Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Meadow Schroeder ◽  
Michelle A. Drefs ◽  
Michael Zwiers
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Math Learning ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Disability Identification

Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document