1983Learning Disability QuarterlyRequires access

The Debate over Learning Disability vs. Reading Disability: A Survey of Practitioners' Populations and Remedial Methods

Barbara Johnson, Mary F. Schneider, Diane J. German

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

The Learning Disability/Reading Disability Questionnaire constructed by the researchers was used to investigate and compare diagnostic and remedial populations and practices among 333 professionals in the following groups: 74 self-contained learning disabilities specialists, 141 resource learning disabilities specialists, and 118 reading resource specialists. Results are presented here regarding characteristics of remedial populations, prevalent use of instructional time, and usage of remedial methods and materials. The investigation demonstrated that both learning disabilities and reading professionals remediated language-disordered populations and displayed a similar profile regarding use of instructional time. Both professions employed reading methods rather than process methods. A paucity of study skill methods was found to be used by both professions. Implications for the fields are noted.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Learning Disability/Reading Disability Questionnaire constructed by the researchers was used to investigate and compare diagnostic and remedial populations and practices among 333 professionals in the following groups: 74 self-contained learning disabilities specialists, 141 resource learning disabilities specialists, and 118 reading resource specialists. Results are presented here regarding characteristics of remedial populations, prevalent use of instructional time, and usage of remedial methods and materials. The investigation demonstrated that both learning disabilities and reading professionals remediated language-disordered populations and displayed a similar profile regarding use of instructional time. Both professions employed reading methods rather than process methods. A paucity of study skill methods was found to be used by both professions. Implications for the fields are noted.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Learning Disability/Reading Disability Questionnaire constructed by the researchers was used to investigate and compare diagnostic and remedial populations and practices among 333 professionals in the following groups: 74 self-contained learning disabilities specialists, 141 resource learning disabilities specialists, and 118 reading resource specialists. Results are presented here regarding characteristics of remedial populations, prevalent use of instructional time, and usage of remedial methods and materials. The investigation demonstrated that both learning disabilities and reading professionals remediated language-disordered populations and displayed a similar profile regarding use of instructional time. Both professions employed reading methods rather than process methods. A paucity of study skill methods was found to be used by both professions. Implications for the fields are noted.

Key concepts: Remedial education, Learning disability, Reading (process), Reading disability, Psychology, Resource (disambiguation), Medical education, Process (computing)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Debate over Learning Disability vs. Reading Disability: A Survey of Practitioners' Populations and Remedial Methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens