A Critical Analysis of Siegel's Case for Revision of the Learning Disability Construct
In this paper I analyse Siegel's revisionist conceptualization of the learning disability concept. Siegel has attempted to demonstrate that the construct of learning disabilities is flawed because of its long-term linkage with the variable of intelligence. The discrepancy formulation is the particular focus of her criticism. She has denigrated the use of IQ tests in LD diagnosis and argued that intelligence and reading measure many of the same abilities and therefore any difference between these two functions is confounded; that IQ is not a valid measure of reading potential in children with LD and normal populations; and that logical analysis and empirical research demonstrate that the concept of intelligence is redundant in any conception of learning disabilities. I present arguments against each of these propositions and several other matters raised in her paper. I propose two basic approaches to learning disabilities and give expression to these in two theoretical models, a simple categorical model (designated as Model C) and the underachievement model (Model D). I show that Siegel's interpretation is based on a weak version of Model C, but that this model fails to elucidate the essential meaning of the learning disability construct. I show that Model D is the more appropriate alternative. I contend that the application of standard regression procedures inherent in Model D would lead to a more appropriate definition of LD and that more stringent standards for the underachievement criterion would offset many of the problems that Siegel has highlighted in her paper.
- 원문이 없습니다.
유료 다운로드의 경우 해당 사이트의 정책에 따라 신규 회원가입, 로그인, 유료 구매 등이 필요할 수 있습니다. 해당 사이트에서 발생하는 귀하의 모든 정보활동은 NDSL의 서비스 정책과 무관합니다.
NDSL에서는 해당 원문을 복사서비스하고 있습니다. 위의 원문복사신청 또는 장바구니 담기를 통하여 원문복사서비스 이용이 가능합니다.
- 이 논문과 함께 출판된 논문 + 더보기