Learning disabilities definition steps

In order to define a child as "learning disabled", the following five main step/conditions have to be met.  These five steps are an application of CHC theory to the field of learning disabilities. 

To note: CHC is a theory about the structure of cognitive abilities and not about learning disabilities, but it can be applied to learning disability definition.  (You can find out more about CHC theory and cognitive abilities in the presentation series "intelligence and cognitive abilities" found at the right column of this blog.  This series also gives information about which tests measure which abilities).

These five steps are my abbreviation of the process detailed in this article (and many others) of which I already recommended here before:

INTEGRATION OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION AND NORM-REFERENCED TESTS IN LEARNING DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION:

LEARNING FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL. 

DAWN P. FLANAGAN , SAMUEL O. ORTIZ, VINCENT C. ALFONSO and

AGNIESZKA M. DYNDA.  Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 43(7), 2006

This is a free article.  The definition steps are somewhere in the middle of it. 

These five steps are serial and dependent on each other.  If a child does not "pass" step 1, he doesn't have learning disability and there's no need to check if he passes step 2.  If he passes step 1 but doesn't pass step 2, clearly he doesn't have learning disability and there's no need to continue to step 3 and so on.

Step 1:  reading decoding and/or reading comprehension and/or basic writing and/or expressing complex ideas through writing and/or math are significantly lower than expected for the child's age and grade (the child's results in tests that measure reading/writing/math are lower than average for his age and grade by at least one standard deviation).

Note that we are not talking here about the child's grades in various school subjects.  We are talking about the basic skills of reading/writing/math as measured by specific tests for reading/writing/math.

Nor are we talking about measures like phonological processing, rapid naming etc.  We are talking only about measures of reading/writing/math themselves, like reading speed, word decoding precision etc.

Step 2:  One (or more) cognitive ability (fluid ability, short term memory, processing speed, visual processing, auditory processing, long term storage and retrieval, crystallized knowledge) is significantly lower than expected for the child's age and grade (the child's results in tests that measure a specific ability or this ability's index score are lower than average for his age and grade by at least one standard deviation).

Step 3:  There is an empirical or a logical link between the findings in step1 and the findings in step 2.  We want to see whether the low cognitive ability/abilities found in step 2 can explain the child's reading/writing/math difficulties.

For example, if the child has poor word decoding, and poor auditory processing (especially phonological processing), we can assume that the decoding difficulties are due to the phonological disabilities. 

This step assumes that the child's functioning in reading/writing/math is a symptom of disabilities found in one or more cognitive abilities.  The disabilities are not in reading/writhing/math.  The disabilities are in the cognitive abilities and they are expressed in reading/writing/math.

Step 4:  most of the child's cognitive abilities (fluid ability, short term memory, processing speed, visual processing, auditory processing, long term storage and retrieval, crystallized knowledge) are within normal limits.

This step emphasizes that learning disability is a specific phenomenon and not a global, wide-scale one.   A child who functions poorly at most abilities is not learning disabled according to this definition.  It's certainly possible that this child will have learning disabilities as well, but it's reasonable to assume, that they will not be the main reasons for his poor functioning in reading/writing/math.  The main reason for these difficulties would be low ability.

Step 5:  exclusionary factors are not better explanations of the child's poor performance in reading/writing/math.  If the child's parents are going through divorce and the child is preoccupied with this and can't concentrate in class, or if the child has significant other emotional problems that impair his functioning, or if the child has just immigrated or had poor teachers or switched schools too often etc.  - these factors might explain the poor performance in reading/writing/math better than a learning disability. In this case we won't define the child as having learning disability.

As in the previous step, it's possible that a child whose main reason for poor functioning is exclusionary factors, also has learning disabilities.  But because learning disability is not the main reason for his difficulties, we won't define him as learning disabled.  It's possible that in the future, after the family situation stabilizes or after the child get therapy and so on, we'll assess him again and see if the main problem then would be learning disability. 

Only if the child "passes" all five steps, he can be defined as learning disabled and the source of his disability can be identified (this is the low cognitive ability/abilities that we found in step 2).

This is a "narrow" definition.  Working in light of this definition will reduce the number of children identified as learning disabled.  I can add from my own and my colleagues' experience, that using these steps makes the picture clear and helps pinpoint the reasons for the child's difficulties and plan an intervention targeted at the source of the problem.

The definition can be summarized in one sentence:

Below average aptitude – achievement consistency within otherwise normal ability profile.

Aptitude is measured by cognitive abilities, achievement is measured by reading/writing/math tests.  Below average aptitude – achievement consistency:  the child's low functioning level in a specific cognitive ability fits his low performance pattern in reading/writing/math.