Current Neuropsychological Diagnosis of Learning Problems: A Leap of Faith

  • Daniel J. Reschly
  • Frank M. Gresham
Part of the Critical Issues in Neuropsychology book series (CINP)

Abstract

Based on our review of the literature, we have reached what may be a startling conclusion to readers of this handbook: Neuropsychological diagnoses of mild learning problems are largely irrelevant, misleading, and potentially harmful because they contribute to beliefs that probably impede rather than facilitate effective remediation. Strong statements? Yes, but entirely consistent with the available evidence, which we believe shows that neuropsychological assessment and treatment based on neuropsychological concepts have little or no treatment validity; rely on unreliable and invalid measures; and impede efforts of nonneurologically trained persons such as teachers and parents to cope with learning problems.

Keywords

Posit Dyslexia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Algozzine, B., and Korinek, L. (1985). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going? Exceptional Children, 51, 388–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Algozzine, B., and Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Learning disabilities as a subset of school failure: The over-sophistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, 50, 242–246.Google Scholar
  3. Arter, J. A., and Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Education esearch, 49, 517–555.Google Scholar
  4. Bender, L. A. (1938). A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and its clinical use. Research Monographs of the American Psychiatric Association, No. 3.Google Scholar
  5. Benton, A. L. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology of childhood: An overview. In R. Reltan and L. Davison (Eds.), Clinical neuro-psychology: Current status and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Coles, G. S. (1978). The learning disabilities test battery: Empirical and social issues. Howard Educational Review, 48, 313–340.Google Scholar
  7. Cromwell, R., Blashfield, R., andStrauss, J. (1975). Criteria for classification systems: In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J., and Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Wiley (Halsted Press).Google Scholar
  9. Cruickshank, W. M. (1972). Some issues facing the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 380383.Google Scholar
  10. Cruickshank, W. M. (1979). Learning disabilities: Perceptual or other ACLD Newbriefs, No. 125, March/April, 7–10.Google Scholar
  11. Das, J. P., Kirby, J., andJarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processing. New York: Academic Press. Das, J. P., and Naglieri, J. A. (in press). Cognitive assessment system. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J. E., and Algozzine, B. (1983). Impact of different definitions of learning disabilities on the number of students identified. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Register. (1977). Procedures for Evaluating Specific Learning Disabilities. Author, December 29, 42 (250), 65082–65085.Google Scholar
  14. Gaddes, W. H. (1981). An examination of the validity of neuro-psychological knowledge in educational diagnosis and re-mediation. In G. W. Hynd and J. E. Obrzut (Eds.), Neuro-psychological assessment and the school age child: Issues and procedures. New York: Grupe and Strattan.Google Scholar
  15. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1970). The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  16. Gazzaniga, M. S., Bogen, J. E., and Sperry, R. W. (1965). Observations on visual perception after disconnexion of the cerebral hemispheres in man. Brain, 88, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geib, S. A., and Mizokawa, D. T. (1986). Special education and social structure: The commonality of “exceptionality.” American Educational Research Journal, 23, 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, M. M. (1984). The Department of Education’s Sixth Annual Report to Congress on PL94–142: Is Congress getting the full story? Exceptional Children, 51, 209–224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Goh, D. S., Telzrow, C. J., and Fuller, G. B. (1981). The practice of psychological assessment among school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 12, 696–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, J. F. (1983). Organicity as a construct in psychological diagnosis. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. III). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Graden, J. L., Zins, J. E., and Curtis, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  22. Grimes, J. P., and Reschly, D. J. (1986). Relevant Educational Assessment and Intervention Model (RE-AIM) (Project proposal funded by the United States Department of Education). Des Moines: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education. 518 CHAPTER 27Google Scholar
  23. Hammill, D., and Larsen, S. (1974). The effectiveness of psycho- linguistic training. Exceptional Children, 41, 5–14.Google Scholar
  24. Hammill, D., and Larsen, S. (1978). The effectiveness of psycho-linguistic training: A reaffirmation of position. Exceptional Children, 44, 402–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartlage, L. C. (1981). Clinical application of neuropsychological test data: A case study. School Psychology Review, 10, 36 2366.Google Scholar
  26. Hartlage, L. C. (1982). Neuropsychological assessment techniques. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Hartlage, L. C. (1986). Pediatric neuropsychology. In D. Wedding, A. M. Horton, andJ. Webster (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook: Behavioral and clinical perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Hartlage, L. C., and Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment and the individualization of instruction. In G. W. Hynd and J. E. Obrzut (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment and the school age child: Issues and procedures. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  29. Heller, K., Holtzman, W., and Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hynd, G. W., Obrzut, J. E., Hayes, F., and Becker, M. G. (1986). Neuropsychology of childhood learning disabilities. In D. Wedding, A. M. Horton, and J. Webster (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook: Behavioral and clinical perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Kaufman, A. (1976). A new approach to interpretation of test scatter on the WISC-R. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufman, A. (1979). WISC-R research: Implications for interpretation. School Psychology Digest, 8, 5–27.Google Scholar
  33. Kaufman, A. S., Goldsmith, B. Z., and Kaufman, N. L. (1984). K-SOS: Kaufman Sequential or Simultaneous. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  34. Koppitz, E. (1975). The Bender Gestalt Test for young children (Vol. 2 ). New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  35. Leinhardt, G., Bickel, W., and Pallay, A. (1982). Unlabeled but still entitled: Toward more effective remediation. Teachers College Record, 84, 391–422.Google Scholar
  36. Lund, K., Foster, G., and McCall-Perez, F. (1978). The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: A reevaluation. Exceptional Children, 44, 310–321.Google Scholar
  37. Mercer, C. D., Hughes, C., and Mercer, A. R. (1985). Learning disabilities definitions used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minskoff, E. (1975). Research on psycholinguistic training: Critique and guidelines. Exceptional Children, 42, 136–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Minskoff, E. H., Wiseman, D. E., and Minskoff, J. G. (1972). The MWM Program for Developing Language Abilities. Ridgeway, NJ: Educational Performance Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Naglieri, J. A., and Das, J. P. (in press). Planning, arousal, simultaneous, and successive (PASS): A model for assessment. Journal of School Psychology. Google Scholar
  41. National Joint Committee for Learning Disabilities Position Paper. ( 1981, January 30). (Reprinted in the Society for Learning Disabilities and Remedial Education Newsletter. (1981, August). 1 (4), 1–2 ).Google Scholar
  42. Newcomer, R., Larsen, S., andHammill, D. (1975). A response to Minskoff. Exceptional Children, 42, 144–148.Google Scholar
  43. O’Boyle, M. W. (1986). Hemispheric laterality as a basis for learning: What we know and don’t know. In G. D. Phye and T. Andre (Eds.), Cognitive instructional psychology: Components of classroom learning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Obrzut, A. (1981). A neuropsychological case report of a child with auditory-linguistic dyslexia. School Psychology Review, 10, 356–361.Google Scholar
  45. Reschly, D. J. (1986). Economic and cultural factors in childhood exceptionality. In R. T. Brown and C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on childhood exceptionality: A handbook. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  46. Reschly, D. J. (1987a). Learning characteristics of mildly handicapped students: Implications for classification, placement, and programming. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vols. 1–3 ). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Reschly, D. J. (1987b). Assessing educational handicaps. In A. Hess and I. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Reschly, D. J., Genshaft, J., and Binder, M. S. (1987). The 1986 NASP survey: Comparison of practitioners, NASP leadership, and university faculty on key issues. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  49. Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment and the habilitation of learning: Considerations in the search for aptitude x treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 10, 343–349.Google Scholar
  50. Reynolds, C. R. (1982). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkins (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Reynolds, C. R. (1986). Transactional models of intellectual development, yes. Deficit models of process remediation, no. School Psychology Review, 15, 256–260.Google Scholar
  52. Reynolds, C. R., and Kamphaus, R. W. (1986). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Development, structure, and application in neuropsychology. In D. Wedding, A. M. Horton, and J. Webster (Eds.), The neuropsychology handbook: Behavioral and clinical perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., and Walberg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.Google Scholar
  54. Salvia, J., and Ysseldyke, J. (1985). Assessment in special and remedial education ( 3rd ed. ). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  55. Sandoval, J., and Haapanen, R. M. (1981). A critical commentary on neuropsychology in the schools: Are we ready School Psychology Review, 10, 381–388.Google Scholar
  56. Shapiro, E. S. (1987). Behavioral school psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Shapiro, E. S., and Lentz, F. E. (1985). Assessing academic behavior: A behavioral approach. School Psychology Review, 14, 325–338.Google Scholar
  58. Shepard, L. A. (1983). The role of measurement in educational policy: Lessons from the identification of learning disabilities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shepard, L. A., and Smith, M. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sperry, R. W. (1968). Hemisphere disconnection and unity in conscious awareness. American Psychologist, 23, 723–733.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tombari, M., and Bergan, J. (1978). Consultant uses and teacher verbalizations, judgments, and expectancies concerning children’s adjustment problems. Journal of School Psychology, 16, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wade, T. C., and Baker, T. B. (1977). Opinions and use of psychological tests: A survey of clinical psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874–882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiederholt, J. L. (1974). Historical perspectives on the education of the learning disabled. In L. Mann and D. A. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review of special education. Philadelphia: JSE Press.Google Scholar
  64. Witt, J. C. (1986). Review of the Wide Range Achievement Test—Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., and Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M., and McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences between underachievers and students labeled as learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ysseldyke, J. E., and Mirkin, P. K. (1982). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of the research. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Ziskin, J. (1970, 1st ed.; 1975, 2nd ed.; 1981, 3rd ed.). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony (3rd ed.). Venice, CA: Law and Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Reschly
    • 1
  • Frank M. Gresham
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations