Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics learning disability in the primary school-age years

Abstract

This paper is a descriptive report of findings from a prospective longitudinal study of math disability (MD). The study was designed to address the incidence of MD during primary school, the utility of different MD definitions, and evidence of MD subtypes. The results illustrate the dynamic properties of psychometrically derived definitions of MD. Different groups of children meet criteria for MD depending on which measure(s) are used for identification. Over time, a given individual may not continue to meet MD criteria, even when using the same assessments. Thus, the findings lead to cautions regarding the single-tool/ one-time assessment for a clinical diagnosis of MD. Twenty-two of 209 participants demonstrated "persistent MD" (MD-p), or MD for more than one school grade. Reading disability was relatively more frequent in this MD-p subgroup than in the remaining participants (25 percent vs. 7 percent). Reading-related skills were correlated with math achievement, as were select visual spatial skills. There was minimal overlap between groups who met either a "poor achievement" criteria or an "IQ-achievement discrepancy," and the latter was far less stable a measure over time than the former. The results highlight the complexities of defining MD and illustrate the need for more research in this area.

Kindergarten Predictors of Math Learning Disability

“…Identifying Subtypes of MLD-Although MLD and RD can co-occur, many children with MLD do not have RD, and the majority of children with RD do not have MLD (Lewis, Hitch, & Walker, 1994;Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). Landerl et al (2004) propose that the cognitive underpinnings of MLD are the same in children with or without co-occurring RD; their notion is supported by findings that deficits in numeric processing and math fact retrieval skills do not differ across these two subgroups (Hanich et al, 2001).…”

“…For instance, cognitive and behavioral indices-including teacher rating forms-predict risk for LD in school-age children (Glascoe, 2001;Teisl et al, 2001), and both cognitive skills and self-report study attitudes predict risk for LD in college students (Murray & Wren, 2003). It is unclear whether or to what degree these additions will enhance the prediction of MLD, or whether they may assist in identifying MLD subtypes.Identifying Subtypes of MLD-Although MLD and RD can co-occur, many children with MLD do not have RD, and the majority of children with RD do not have MLD (Lewis, Hitch, & Walker, 1994;Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). Landerl et al (2004) propose that the cognitive underpinnings of MLD are the same in children with or without co-occurring RD; their notion is supported by findings that deficits in numeric processing and math fact retrieval skills do not differ across these two subgroups (Hanich et al, 2001).…”

“…However, despite federally mandated guidelines to define LD based on an IQ-Achievement discrepancy, the discrepancy model has received little if any empirical support; in fact, there is empirical support against the use of a discrepancy-based definition for LD in general, and for RD specifically (Francis et al, 2005). It is therefore not surprising that the discrepancy model alone also does not help us to define MLD (e.g., Mazzocco & Myers, 2003).In pursuing a definition of MLD, it is useful to examine the evolution of the recently published consensus definition of RD (Dyslexia Working Group, 2002). This consensus definition was based on approximately 30 years of research on the core cognitive features underlying RD (NICHD Reading Panel, 2000).…”

Co-Morbidity in Mathematical Learning Disabilities: Rule or Exception?

“…The research focus on mathematical learning disabilities still remains limited (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). From 2000-2006 only 152 articles on mathematical disabilities (math*disab*) or dyscalculia and 2269 articles on reading disabilities (read*disab*) or dyslexia (or 14.9:1) were cited in Web of science, although the prevalence of both learning disabilities is about (or 1.3:1) the same.…”

Assistance of Students with Mathematical Learning Difficulties—How Can Research Support Practice?—A Summary

“…Healy and Powell (2013) reviewed some of the critiques and pointed to problems such as the lack of a robust consensus around characteristics of so-called disorders (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003;Gifford, 2005), the use of standard calculation procedures in diagnostic procedures (Ellemor-Collins & Wright, 2007;Gifford, 2005), the assumption that learning can be expected to be homogenous (Dowker, 2004;Ginsburg, 1997) and the failure to recognize environmental and socio-emotional factors (Kaufmann et al, 2013).…”