Content area
Full text
Abstract
In this article, we analyze critically available definitions of learning disability (LD). The general problem of definition is discussed first followed by a discussion of individual LD definitions from the earliest to the latest. We conclude that LD definitions fail to provide substantive insight into the nature of the condition. The reasons for this failure are discussed in relation to the nature of definition and the difficulties in providing operational definitions of LD that are meaningful and significant. Finally, means for resolving the problem of definition are discussed.
It was Voltaire who admonished that if you debate him, you must first define your terms. If called upon to debate issues about learning disabilities (LD), Voltaire would encounter difficulty. What would be the response if called upon to define LD? A number of responses are possible, but none is entirely satisfactory; this failure to achieve consensus about the proper response to the seemingly straightforward question, "What is LD?" has been a long-standing source of controversy, conflict, and crisis (Keogh,1988). Although LD has experienced unprecedented growth and has had significant impact on special education, it remains among the most problematic classifications because of the vagaries and antagonisms surrounding definition (Mather & Roberts, 1994). The purpose of this article is to explore the problem of definition by critically analyzing existing definitions and to suggest ways of resolving the myriad difficulties.
The Issue of Definition
Over time, a number of LD definitions have been proposed, but none emerged as an unequivocal favorite (e.g., Tucker, Stevens, & Ysseldyke, 1983). Presently, the two definitions enjoying the greatest support are the legislative definition found in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the one proposed by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), a consortium of representatives from organizations interested in LD. Although similar in depicting LD, the two definitions represent compromise positions about the nature of LD appropriate for a federal mandate (i.e., IDEA) and a consensus view of professionals and parents (i.e., NJCLD). They have not, however, brought closure to the issue of definition.
While the LD field always seems to be singled out for criticism about definition, its partners in the high-- incidence mild-disability domain-- mild mental retardation (MMR) and emotional or behavior disorder...