A Fuzzy Set Model of Learning Disability: Identification from Clinical Data

Author(s):  
J.M. Horvath
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Claudia Pagliaro ◽  
SaraBeth Sullivan ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister

Limited studies exist that connect using signed language with mathematics performance in deaf and hard of hearing children. Here we examine 257 participants and compare their results on the NWEA MAP to their results on an assessment of ASL skills. We found that better ASL skills tended to result in better MAP performance. These results are moderated by factors such as age, gender, parental hearing status, and learning disability identification.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Meadow Schroeder ◽  
Michelle A. Drefs ◽  
Michael Zwiers

Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document