Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

No abstract

Twenty‐four children with specific reading disability, originally studied and treated at the Bellevue Hospital Mental Hygiene Clinic between 1949 and 1951, were re‐eaxamined as young adults between 1961 and 1962, with the battery of tests given to them ten to 12 years before. Their specific perceptual problems and evidence of lack of clear‐out cerebral dominance persist, although in less severe form. Those patients who as children had neurological signs in addition to the specific reading disability showed less improvement than those who had none.

The problem of axial rotations in reading was investigated by the use of the Lamb Chop Test. Comparisons of reading readiness scores, levels of reading achievement, and scores on the Lamb Chop Test for first and third grade Ss indicate significant association between these factors and incidence of rotational errors. Frequency of rotational errors was not found to be greater among left-handed than among right-handed Ss. Analysis of types of rotational errors showed a decrease in both vertical and depth rotations when data for first and third grade samples were compared. The persistence of horizontal rotations among poorer readers in the third grade suggests that (1) the hitherto predominant emphasis upon vertical (Left-Right) rotations may have been misplaced and (2) consideration of all types of axial rotations, rather than any single one, is necessary in the diagnosis of reading disability.