Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability: Has the Quest Led Us Astray? A Response to Stanovich

• Published in: Reading research quarterly 1992-01, Vol.27 (3), p.276-278
• Main Author: Christensen, Carol A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0034-0553

In a response to Keith E. Stanovich's article "Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability: Has Intelligence Led Us Astray?" (see LLBA 25/4, 9109926), Stanovich's ideas for the development of more appropriate psychometric tools to sustain the distinction between "smart" poor readers (learning disabled) & unintelligent poor readers (instructionally delayed or garden variety students) are disputed. It is stated that searching for defining features of a qualitatively different group of poor readers is futile & that psychometric approaches have failed to provide satisfactory answers to the disability dilemma. It is suggested that rather than pursuing a continued search for the "true" learning-disabled child, researchers should look for specific instructional solutions to reading failure regardless of whether the child is developmentally delayed, economically disadvantaged, or from a racial or cultural minority. In Response to Christensen, Stanovich (Ontario Instit for Studies in Education, Toronto) states that although Christensen's article contains many important ideas regarding the socially constructed nature of the definitions of learning disabilities, many of her points are orthogonal to the theoretical issues that were the focus of his review. He further states that the true issue is not whether the research into subgroups of poor readers should be abandoned in order to direct effort toward the delivery of instructional programs. He argues that the quest for differentiable subgroups of poor readers may or may not result in instructional innovations & that one cannot predict the practical consequences of scientific knowledge in advance. He also rejects the idea that if a problem is amenable to partial interpretation with a constructivist framework, this precludes the applicability of neurological & information process analyses. 24 References. H. L. Stidger