There are children who by nature of their abilities and disabilities cannot be placed in discrete categories such as ‘blind’, ‘deaf’, ‘intellectually retarded’, ‘emotionally disturbed’ etc. There are children who can see yet do not interpret visual stimuli correctly. There are children who can hear but fail to discriminate specific sounds, sound blends and even words. They may have normal intelligence yet retarded in achievement of basic skills. This relatively new and frivolous concept has been described in different ways and is known as ‘Learning Disabilities’ (LD).

Of the great diversities of human exceptionalities, none is perhaps more paradoxical than learning disabilities (LD). No area of special education has experienced as much rapid growth, extreme interest and frantic activity as LD. LD currently represents the largest category of special education.

Learning Disabilities as a field of special education have many questions and few answers. Researchers, educators, psychologists, counselors, and several others dealing with LD have tried to get their answers in different ways having no consensus. Use of different terms and definitions, variety of identification procedures, varied prevalence rate and educational provisions has made LD a very demanding area of research.

The project ‘ A Study into  the Issues Pertaining to Terminology, Definition, Identification and Prevalence of Learning Disabilities’ has the following objectives:

• To search for different terms used to describe LD.
• To find out reason for use of different terms to describe the same disadvantage
• To select appropriate term for describing learning disorders
• To review the literature on definitions of LD
• To  frame an appropriate definition of LD
• To analyze different identification procedures and devise a suitable and effective identification procedure
• To review literatures on prevalence of LD and to find out reasons for high incidence of LD among boys
• To find out children with LD on the basis of appropriate definition and suitable and effective identification procedure developed during the present study
• To find out the prevalence rate of LD

Almost all the works related to LD have been done in USA. No country other than USA has contributed significantly in the field of LD. Therefore, this study has mostly utilized American literature.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

History

Foundation, transition, integration, and current phases

Problems of the study

Objectives

Hypotheses

Design of the study and methodology

Need and significance of the study

CHAPTER 2 TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS

 CHAPTER 3 IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

Teacher assessment

Individual assessment instruments

Teaching-Testing techniques and screening instruments

Screening instruments

Screening for language and/or adjustment behavior

Screening for achievement related tasks

Group screening techniques

Project child LD/Screen pupil behavior

Criterion reference testing

Clinical diagnostic procedure

Test batteries and description of tests

Intelligence tests

Developmental and communication tests

Language and learning aptitude tests

Auditory discrimination tests

Achievement tests

Assessment

Discrepancy between performance and potential ability

Problem with using the IQ- Achievement

Discrepancy formula

Obtaining assessment information

Formal standardized tests

Using discrepancy formula to determine eligibility for learning disabilities

Methods for determining the discrepancy score

Medical diagnosis of learning disabilities

Psycho-neurological assessment batteries

Medical technologies for CNS assessment

Use of new techniques

CHAPTER 4 PREVALENCE OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

 CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

 CHAPTER 7 ANALYSIS OF PREVALENCE OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

 CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

 LIST OF TABLES

1. Students in special education classes
2. Classification of terms
3. Edward fry’s Yourself Terminology generator
4. Learning Methods Test record
5. LD/Screen-syllabication (mean)
6. LD/Screen-syllabication (standard deviation)
7. LD/Screen-pupil behavior (mean)
8. LD/Screen-pupil behavior (sd)
9. Grid of identification of language disabled children
10. Sample format of IEP annual goal in mathematics
11. Case history information
12. Rating scales for ADD/ADHD
13. Informal Graded Word-Recognition Test
14. Commonly used academic tests
15. Methods for determining the discrepancy score deviation from level grade
16. Symptoms of ADHD subtypes
17. Terms and their users
18. Terms used by different persons/professionals/departments
19. Tests instruments for identification of LD

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Time line historical development of the Learning Disabilities
2. Political factors in the integration phase
3. Learning Disabilities: an interdisciplinary field
4. Teacher observation tally sheet
5. Example, Normal Development Progression
6. Example, Development Progression in Mentally defective
7. LD/Screen-syllabication teacher instrument (form-A)
8. LD/Screen-syllabication teacher instrument (form-B)
9. Project child LD/Screen pupil behaviour
10. Individualized criterion referenced test report
11. Minimum test battery for pre-school children
12. Minimum test battery for elementary school children
13. Minimum test battery for upper elementary, junior high and high school
14. Mental faculties and subtests of DTLA
15. Stages of IEP process
16. Rating scale of student behavior
17. Informal survey test: sixth grade level
18. Curriculum based assessment chat monitoring- an individual student’s progress
19. Tests of cognitive ability  that can be given by teachers with training
20. Cognitive ability subtests of Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (revised)
21. Criteria used to determine eligibility for LD classification
22. Minskoff’s summary of reports on the incidence of LD
23. Percentage of LD students enrolled in US schools
24. Models of assessment and sources of assessment information
25. Estimate of prevalence of LD
26. Reviewed population
27. No. of reviews and range of reported prevalence of LD among school population
28. Male female ratio in LD population
29. Male female ratio (in 100 male)