Students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement-are they different? A replication study

College students with learning disability diagnoses: who are they and how do they perform?

The purpose of this study is to provide an up-to-date review of the literature on postsecondary students classified as having learning disabilities (LD). The review focused on the criteria by which students were classified as LD and the cognitive and achievement characteristics of the participants. From almost 400 studies, only 30% were empirical (data-based) investigations reporting original data. Findings showed that a wide range of criteria was used to classify students as LD, although various discrepancy criteria and registration with university offices of disability services were most often cited. Participants' mean scores on standardized intelligence and achievement tests were in the average range but somewhat lower than those of other college students. Generally, the findings show a lack of consensus among diagnosticians and researchers about how LD should be diagnosed and also show that college students classified as LD tend to have average achievement, despite scoring below their classmates.

Exploring the Diagnosis of “Gifted/LD”: Characterizing Postsecondary Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses at Different IQ Levels

Increasing numbers of students are being diagnosed as simultaneously gifted and having a learning disability, although the identification procedures and characteristics of these students are matters of continuing debate. In the present study, postsecondary students with learning disability diagnoses ( N = 357) were grouped according to their IQ scores, and the groups’ cognitive and achievement characteristics were explored, with special attention to the proportions of each group that would meet various objective criteria for learning disability diagnosis. Many students in each group failed to meet any of the criteria, although higher IQ students were more likely to meet most of the criteria. In addition, the higher IQ group exhibited higher achievement scores than did the lower IQ group, although the achievement gaps were much smaller than the IQ differences. Implications for the validity of the gifted/LD category as well as future research directions are discussed.

Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics

This study examined the consequences of classifying postsecondary students as learning disabled (LD) using five objective sets of criteria: IQ-achievement discrepancies (1.0 to 1.49 SD, 1.5 to 1.99 SD, and >or= 2.0 SD), DSM-IV criteria, and chronic educational impairment beginning in childhood. The participants were 378 postsecondary students from two universities who had been previously classified as LD and were receiving instructional and/or testing accommodations. The agreement between diagnostic models was often low, both in terms of the proportion of students identified as well as which students were identified by the models. The discrepancy models identified the largest proportions of students as LD (10% to 42%), whereas fewer than 10% of participants met either of the other sets of criteria, and 55% of the participants were not classified as LD by any of the models. Implications for further research and practices in postsecondary settings are discussed.

Is there a "disability" for learning a foreign language?

Recently, talk of a new type of learning disability (LD)--a foreign language learning disability, or FLLD--has made its way into the LD and foreign language (FL) literature. However, no empirical evidence has been published to support the concept of a "disability" for FL learning by those professionals who use the term. In this article, the author takes the position that there is not a distinct "disability" that can be called an FLLD. He reviews several years of research evidence indicating that any proposal for such a distinct entity is problematic. To support his position, he reviews problems with the current definition and diagnostic criteria for LD. He then cites the many difficulties inherent in the development and use of (a) a logically consistent, easily operationalized, and empirically valid definition of and (b) diagnostic criteria for the FLLD concept. The author then discusses how FL learning problems occur along a continuum of very strong to very poor language learners, and he explains how the proponents of an FLLD misuse the concept of FL aptitude. Finally, the author cites implications resulting from the research evidence on FL learning problems and use of the term FLLD.