Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research To Practice
Bradley, Renee; Danielson, Louis; Hallahan, Daniel P. 2002 Routledge, 856p.
■Bradley, Renee; Danielson, Louis; Hallahan, Daniel P. 2002 Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research To Practice
，Routledge, 856p. ISBN-10: 0805844481 ISBN-13: 978-0805844481 US$ 118.95 [amazon]
Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice is the remarkable product of a learning disabilities summit conference convened by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in August 2001 and the activities following that summit. Both the conference and this book were seen as important preludes to congressional reauthorization of the historic Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) scheduled for 2002 and subsequent decision making surrounding implementation. The OSEP conference brought together people with different perspectives on LD (parents, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) and resulted in this book, which examines the research on nine key issues concerning the identification of children with learning disabilities. Coverage includes alternative responses to treatment, classification approaches, processing deficit models, and approaches to decision making.
Chapter I: learning disabilities: historical perspectives
Chapter II: early identification and intervention for young children with reading/ learning disabilities
Chapter III: Classification of learning disabilities: an evidence-based evaluation
Chapter IV: learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools
Chapter V: discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability
Chapter VI: responsiveness to intervention: an alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities
Chapter VII: empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses
Chapter VIII: clinical judgments in identifying and teaching children with language-based reading difficulties
Chapter IX: is “learning disabilities” just a fancy term for low achievement? a meta\analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label