MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052970467 · doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.162

Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories.

2008· article· en· W2052970467 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michelle Kozey, Linda S. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLearning disabilityConceptualizationPsychologyPsychiatryArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian definitions of learning disabilities (LD) traditionally have varied interprovincially, and the authors have compiled current provincial and territorial policy information related to LD. Special education definitions of LD are summarized, and an overview of funding mechanisms for special education services for students with LD is provided. In the majority of provincial and territorial policies, the concept of LD as a discrepancy between intelligence test scores and achievement has been retained from previous policies as a defining feature. Seven provinces have adopted either the official version or part of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (2002) LD definition, which characterises LD as a cognitive processing disorder or condition with processing deficits. The use of IQ scores and the vague conceptualization of processing disorder are major difficulties with the current definitions. These findings of policy definitions of LD with more detailed identification criteria contrast with current noncategorical provincial funding mechanisms for learning disabled students. Keywords: learning disabilities, policy, processing deficit, IQ-achievement discrepancy The variability in Canadian educational policy definitions of learning disabilities (LD) is not unique to Canada, nor is it a recent phenomenon. The definition of specific LD and related classification criteria have been debated since their inception in the mid1960s (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003).1 Diagnostic definitions and guidelines available to U.S. and Canadian professionals include the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed., text revision; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and the World Health Organisation International Classification of Disease (ICD-IO).2 The core of DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for LD is a discrepancy between intelligence and achievement, with achievement that is substantially below [and] defined as a discrepancy of more than two standard deviations (p. 49). This definition contrasts with the longstanding, overwhelming empirical objection to LD as being defined by a discrepancy between cognitive intelligence and academic achievement (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2002).3 In the United States, policy definitions and the process of LD identification historically have been highly politicized and heavily regulated. U.S. federal disability legislation delineates legal rights for individuals with learning disabilities (i.e., Federal Education of the Handicapped Act [EHA; 1975], Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA 1990-1991], IDEA 1997 [PL 107-15], and IDEA 2004-2005 [PL 108-446], and U.S. federal special education funding is conditional on state compliance with related federal regulations. The contradictions in U.S. federal policy are highlighted in a review by Reschly et al. (2003), which indicated that the majority of U.S. states define LD using different intellectual ability and achievement discrepancy formulas; consequently, reported rates for LD vary significantly from state to state. Although IDEA was recently amended to reflect more current understandings of LD (and the requirement of an intellectual-achievement discrepancy was removed from its criteria), interpretation of how LD state policies may operationalize LD is still under significant and heated debate.4 As noted by Kavale and Forness (2003), U.S. advocacy agencies have been extremely successful in their promotion of expanded definitions of LD such that students designated as learning disabled account for approximately 52% of all special education students, in excess of 2.5 million students. The Canadian experience with the development and definition of LD has been and continues to be distinct from the U.S. experience. A historical account of LD definitions in Canadian research is available in Flynn (1992) and Klassen (2002), but a review of the general literature indicates a limited number of published articles on Canadian administrative or policy definitions of LD. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207