ABSTRACT
In my opinion, the case for learning disabilities (LD) rests on three assumptions: (a) Learning difficulties are not due to inadequate opportunity to learn, to general intelligence, or to physical or emotional/behavioral disorders, but are due to basic disorders in specific cognitive information processes; (b) these specific information processing deficits are a reflection of neurological, constitutional, and/or biological factors; and (c) these specific information processing deficits underlie a limited aspect of academic behavior. Thus, to assess LD at the cognitive level, systematic efforts are made to detect: (a) normal psychometric intelligence, (b) below-normal achievement in some academic skills, (c) below-normal performance in specific cognitive processes (i.e., phonological awareness, working memory), (d) that optimal instruction has been presented but deficits in isolated processes remain, and (e) that processing deficits are not directly caused by environmental factors or contingencies (e.g., socioeconomic status). Unfortunately, the identification of LD has been clouded by current practices that focus on uncovering a significant discrepancy between achievement in a particular academic domain and general psychometric intellectual ability (see Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000, for a review of this literature). This approach has questionable validity and other approaches must be formalized. The alternative approach suggested by Torgesen as well as others (see Swanson, 1987, special issue on information processing) is to focus on process assessment. The model for theory testing suggested by Torgesen is consonant with my own (see Swanson, 1988b; also see Torgesen, 1988, for rebuttal).
