Lyon G R
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Future Child. 1996 Spring;6(1):54-76.
Approximately 5% of all public school students are identified as having a learning disability (LD). LD is not a single disorder, but includes disabilities in any of seven areas related to reading, language, and mathematics. These separate types of learning disabilities frequently co-occur with one another and with social skill deficits and emotional or behavioral disorders. Most of the available information concerning learning disabilities relates to reading disabilities, and the majority of children with learning disabilities have their primary deficits in basic reading skills. An important part of the definition of LD is its exclusions: learning disabilities cannot be attributed primarily to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural difference, or disadvantage. Thus, the concept of LD focuses on the notion of a discrepancy between a child's academic achievement and his or her apparent capacity to learn. Recent research indicates, however, that disability in basic reading skills is primarily caused by deficits in phonological awareness, which is independent of any achievement-capacity discrepancy. Deficits in phonological awareness can be identified in late kindergarten and first grade using inexpensive, straightforward testing protocol. Interventions have varying effectiveness, depending largely on the severity of the individual child's disability. The prevalence of learning disability identification has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. The "real" prevalence of LD is subject to much dispute because of the lack of an agreed-upon definition of LD with objective identification criteria. Some researchers have argued that the currently recognized 5% prevalence rate is inflated; others argue that LD is still underidentified. In fact, it appears that there are both sound and unsound reasons for the increase in identification rates. Sound reasons for the increase include better research, a broader definition of disability in reading, focusing on phonological awareness, and greater identification of girls with learning disabilities. Unsound reasons for the increase include broad and vague definitions of learning disability, financial incentives to identify students for special education, and inadequate preparation of teachers by colleges of education, leading to overreferral of students with any type of special need. There is no clear demarcation between students with normal reading abilities and those with mild reading disability. The majority of children with reading disabilities have relatively mild reading disabilities, with a smaller number having extreme reading disabilities. The longer children with disability in basic reading skills, at any level of severity, go without identification and intervention, the more difficult the task of remediation and the lower the rate of success. Children with extreme deficits in basic reading skills are much more difficult to remediate than children with mild or moderate deficits. It is unclear whether children in the most severe range can achieve age- and grade-approximate reading skills, even with normal intelligence and with intense, informed intervention provided over a protracted period of time. Children with severe learning disabilities are likely to manifest an increased number of and increased severity of social and behavioral deficits. When children with disabilities in reading also manifest attention deficit disorder, their reading deficits are typically exacerbated, more severe, and more resistant to intervention. While severe reading disorders are clearly a major concern, even mild deficits in reading skills are likely to portend significant difficulties in academic learning. These deficits, too, are worthy of early identification and intervention. Even children with relatively subtle linguistic and reading deficits require the expertise of a teacher who is well trained and informed about the relationships between language development and reading development.
大约5%的公立学校学生被认定有学习障碍(LD)。学习障碍并非单一病症,而是涵盖与阅读、语言和数学相关的七个领域中任何一个领域的障碍。这些不同类型的学习障碍常常相互并发,还会与社交技能缺陷以及情绪或行为障碍同时出现。大多数关于学习障碍的现有信息都与阅读障碍相关,并且大多数有学习障碍的儿童在基本阅读技能方面存在主要缺陷。学习障碍定义的一个重要部分是其排除因素:学习障碍不能主要归因于智力迟钝、情绪障碍、文化差异或不利条件。因此,学习障碍的概念侧重于儿童学业成绩与其明显学习能力之间差异的概念。然而,最近的研究表明,基本阅读技能方面的障碍主要是由语音意识缺陷导致的,这与任何成绩 - 能力差异无关。在幼儿园大班后期和一年级,可以使用低成本、简单直接的测试方案来识别语音意识缺陷。干预措施的效果各不相同,这在很大程度上取决于个别儿童障碍的严重程度。在过去20年里,学习障碍认定的患病率急剧上升。由于缺乏一个具有客观认定标准的、大家一致认可的学习障碍定义,学习障碍的“实际”患病率备受争议。一些研究人员认为目前公认的5%的患病率被高估了;另一些人则认为学习障碍仍未得到充分认定。事实上,认定率上升似乎既有合理原因,也有不合理原因。上升的合理原因包括更好的研究、对阅读障碍更宽泛的定义、关注语音意识以及对有学习障碍女孩的更多认定。上升的不合理原因包括对学习障碍宽泛且模糊的定义、为特殊教育认定学生的经济激励,以及教育学院对教师培训不足,导致对任何类型特殊需求学生的过度转介。阅读能力正常的学生与有轻度阅读障碍的学生之间没有明确的界限。大多数有阅读障碍的儿童有相对轻度的阅读障碍,只有少数有严重的阅读障碍。基本阅读技能有障碍的儿童,无论严重程度如何,未被认定和干预的时间越长,补救任务就越困难,成功率也就越低。基本阅读技能有严重缺陷的儿童比有轻度或中度缺陷的儿童更难补救。目前尚不清楚即使是智力正常且在很长一段时间内接受密集、专业干预的情况下,处于最严重程度范围的儿童是否能够达到接近年龄和年级水平的阅读技能。有严重学习障碍的儿童可能会表现出更多且更严重的社交和行为缺陷。当有阅读障碍的儿童还表现出注意力缺陷障碍时,他们的阅读障碍通常会加剧、更严重且更难干预。虽然严重的阅读障碍显然是一个主要问题,但即使是阅读技能的轻度缺陷也可能预示着在学术学习中会遇到重大困难。这些缺陷也值得早期识别和干预。即使是有相对细微语言和阅读缺陷的儿童也需要一位训练有素且了解语言发展与阅读发展之间关系的教师的专业指导。