Kenneth A. Kavale

Conduct Disorders in School: Special Education Eligibility and Comorbidity

Conduct disorders is a term that has a certain ambiguity in terms of special education eligibility for public school services. Part of this ambiguity stems from problems inherent in the current school definition of Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED) and part from the fact that conduct disorders are often found to coexist with other identifiable diagnoses in the spectrum of emotional and behavioral disorders. Comparison of SED identification rates with other special education categories and examination of selected studies on comorbidity subtypes of conduct disorders illustrate the scope of current problems in special education eligibility for children with conduct disorders. A new substitute SED definition and specific early identification techniques are suggested as possible solutions.

History, Definition, and Diagnosis

For a field that did not officially exist 25 years ago, learning disabilities (LD) has experienced unprecedented growth and has had significant impact on special education in particular, and education in general. The growth and development, however, have not been without cost and LD, besides being the largest category of special education, is also the most problematic (Gallagher, 1986). It is a field marked by controversy, conflict, and crisis, which has placed LD at a critical juncture. There is a continuing call for positive and rational answers to the question: What do we do about learning disabilities? A first step in answering this question is to examine the relationship between the LD category introduced 25 years ago and the LD category of today. The purpose of this chapter is to examine that relationship by focusing on the history, definition, and diagnosis of LD.

School Learning, Time and Learning Disabilities: The Disassociated Learner

Most proposals describing the fundamental nature of learning disabilities have been single paradigm notions emphasizing either intrinsic or extrinsic factors. These descriptions generally lack explanatory power and fail to provide a comprehensive statement. This paper describes the learning disabled child as a disassociated learner in the sense of a student not actively involved in the learning process. The description is based on a framework incorporating knowledge of the normal teaching-learning process as well as theoretical ideas about correlates of learning disabilities. The framework shows how it may be logically conceptualized that some children dissassociate themselves from academic learning and come to be termed learning disabled.

The Historical Foundation of Learning Disabilities A Quantitative Synthesis Assessing the Validity of Strauss and Werner's Exogenous Versus Endogenous Distinction of Mental Retardation

This paper reviews the research of Alfred Strauss and Heinz Werner on the behavioral differences between exogenous (brain injured) and endogenous (familial-cultural) mental retardation using quantitative methods of research synthesis. The concept of exogenous mental retardation evolved into present-day conceptions of learning disabilities. The findings, however, offer little empirical support for the presumed behavioral differences and reveal considerable overlap among the exogenous and endogenous samples studied by Strauss and Werner. Because the behavioral differences were not of sufficient magnitude for presumptive inference about the consequences of brain damage, it is concluded that much of the foundation of the learning disabilities field has been based on overgeneralized assumptions regarding the nature of brain injury. The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. —T. H. Huxley

Epistemological Relativity in Learning Disabilities

I t is not clear whether Swansons paper will have an impact on the field of learning disabilities (LD). This observation has nothing to do with the paper itself but rather the topic of the paper. In fact, Swanson has provided a lucid and reasoned analysis of theory development and validation for the LD field, but it is uncertain whether the topic is viewed as important. Nevertheless, Swanson is to be congratulated for his insight into the role of theory and research with respect to understanding events, organizing information, and discerning complexity. Because I find myself in almost total agreement with Swansons analysis, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate upon the role of research and demonstrate how a modified view of the research process may serve to enhance Swansons perspective.

Auditory Perceptual Skills and Reading: A Rejoinder to Gersten and Carnine about What Kavale Did:

In the January/February 1984 issue of Remedial and Special Education, Gersten and Carnine offered a response to Kavales (1981) meta-analysis assessing the relationship between auditory perceptual skills and reading. The present rejoinder demonstrates that the data were neither misinterpreted nor overinterpreted, and that Gersten and Carnine failed to portray accurately the primary purpose of the meta-analysis, which was to assess the usefulness of auditory perceptual variables in predicting reading ability. It is concluded here that no convincing contrary evidence was provided and that the earlier findings suggesting auditory perceptual skills to be important correlates of reading achievement remain valid.

Discrepancy models and the meaning of learning disability

Problems and issues surrounding the use of discrepancy in identifying learning disability are reviewed. Since 1976, discrepancy has been the primary criterion for defining learning disability in practice. In a psychometric and statistical sense, however, issues about the best means for calculating a discrepancy remain unresolved. Another problem involves divergent findings about how systematically and rigorously the discrepancy criterion has been applied in practice. The problems and issues have resulted in questions about the status of learning disability as an independent category of special education. It is possible, however, to demonstrate that learning disability can be reliably differentiated from other conditions and that discrepancy is a major factor in demonstrating the differences. Consequently, it is concluded that discrepancy is a legitimate theoretical concept and should be considered as a necessary criterion for the identification of learning disability.

Models and Theories: Their Influence on Research in Learning Disabilities

The field of learning disabilities (LD) seems to be marked by a constant state of crisis characterized by disagreement, confusion, and ambiguity. This turmoil, however, has not abated the growth of LD research (Summers, 1986). Yet, research findings have not successfully resolved long-standing disputes. It would seem that an expanding data base would permit greater problem resolution but instead it only seems to aggravate the situation. A number of problems in the research process appear to contribute to the lack of resolution and the purpose of this chapter is to explore these problems.

Reply How Not to Specify Learning Disabilities: A Rejoinder to Košč

Roščs response to our work provides a good example of the complex problems encountered when one attempts to define learning disabilities. Although his approach to an a priori definition of the terms “learning” and “disability” is appealing in its simplicity, it is clear that such terms do not lend themselves to such easy explanation. His narrow interpretation of disability from an “anatomico-physiological” viewpoint further clouds the issue. Rošč apparently fails to recognize that analysis of the definitional problem in learning disabilities goes far beyond the historical imperative of the Strauss and Werner paradigm to more substantial problems that seriously impede scientific progress in the LD field.Roscs response to our work provides a good example of the complex problems encountered when one attempts to define learning disabilities. Although his approach to an a priori definition of the terms “learning” and “disability” is appealing in its simplicity, it is clear that such terms do not lend themselves to such easy explanation. His narrow interpretation of disability from an “anatomico-physiological” viewpoint further clouds the issue. Rosc apparently fails to recognize that analysis of the definitional problem in learning disabilities goes far beyond the historical imperative of the Strauss and Werner paradigm to more substantial problems that seriously impede scientific progress in the LD field.