APSY 651

FINAL
Running
Head:
APSYEXAM
651 FINAL EXAM

APSY 651 Final Exam

Kelly DeCoste
University of Calgary

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

2
APSY 651 Final Exam Section 1

I entered APSY 651 with the limited understandings of a fourth-year elementary teacher.
As might be expected, I was most interested in learning more about the disorders that most
commonly present in the classroom, particularly Learning Disabilities (LD) and AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). What was particularly interesting (and equally
challenging) for me was the identification of a LD. The following discussion on the identification
of LDs draws on the information gained from the lecture material (Macdonald, 2011) and
accompanying discussions (September November, 2011), and is supplemented by information
from the course texts (APA, 2000; Mash & Barkley, 2003).
Challenges
Prior to this course, I believed that a LD diagnosis could happen quite easily with the use
of a battery of standardized tests. I saw things in black and white and am only now beginning to
appreciate all of the shades of grey that can exist in between. I thought that a students
difficulties would either meetor fail to meetthe cut-off scores for a LD, and so would either
qualifyor not qualifyfor additional support. It did not occur to me that these cut-off points
would be the result of limited financial resources for services, not the result of an actual
difference between those with a LD versus those without. This troubles me. While I realize that
funds are limited, my concern is for the well being of all of my students. That children with
significant learning issues can be denied extra support because of an arbitrary cut-off point
speaks to the need for a major change in our school system (e.g. increased teacher training) so
that the available funds can benefit all students.
Learning that the individually administered standardized tests of reading used to assess
reading difficulties do not map onto daily reading activities (in or outside of the classroom) is

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

also disheartening. As someone who deeply values the information I gain from measures like PM
Benchmarks and the Alberta Diagnostic Reading Inventory, I wish the standardized tests would
more accurately represent the complexity involved in the process of reading. However, this
stresses the importance of a comprehensive assessment approach, incorporating informal
assessments, observations and interviews with these norm-referenced tests (Macdonald, 2011). It
is essential that the complexity and heterogeneity that exists in the area of LDs always be kept in
mind. While some individuals experience difficulties with phonological processing, the difficulty
of others may lie in more severe impairments in reading and language. That many children with a
RD also have a Mathematics Disorder or a Disorder of Written Expression further speaks to the
necessity of a comprehensive assessment to ensure we gain the most complete and accurate
picture of the child as possible so that appropriate intervention efforts can be implemented.
The lack of agreement and clarity that seems to exist with respect to definitions of LDs
and the vagueness of the wording of the DSM-IV-TR criteria (APA, 2000) were also surprising
to me. I knew that my own understanding in this area was weak, but I had assumed that the
empirical evidence that I would be exposed to this term would be much more cohesive and
complete that what currently exists, particularly outside of the area of RD. The ambiguity
inherent in the diagnostic criteria for RD seems to be acknowledged in the inclusion of
functional assessments of writing in the diagnostic criteria for a Disorder of Written Expression,
another complex area of learning, and I am left wondering why this simple inclusion was not
included in the diagnostic criteria for RD.
The lectures, readings, presentations and discussions of this course have opened my eyes
to the multitude of factors that can and do complicate the assessment process for the
identification of LDs. It is troubling to me that parents and students look to us explain LDs to

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

them, when it is not something that the field as a whole can agree on. However troubling this
may be, it makes sense in a way, as it is not easy to reduce something so complex to neat and
simplistic categories. So, while I was hoping to walk away with a clear and simple understanding
of LDs, I realize now how nave that wish was, and am humbled by how much I have left to
learn as I progress through this program.
Current Understanding
Prior to this course, my understanding of LDs could be considered weak at best, and in
my few years of teaching I have not (yet) encountered students with a diagnosed LD. However,
as is common, my classroom has always consisted of a heterogeneous group of children with
various strengths and weaknesses. I recognize that an individualized approach is required to meet
these diverse needs and that my instruction can either help or hinder the performance of my
students, regardless of the presenceor lackof a diagnosed LD. I believe that being trained in
effective instruction is beneficial to all students, and this is an area I feel (based on my personal
experience) needs to be addressed in current Bachelor of Education degrees. Beyond the
classroom, a variety of demographic factors (e.g., SES, parental education) can interfere with
linguistic and cognitive development and can lead to academic difficulties and learning
disabilities. That poor instruction, lack of opportunity and cultural factors are listed as
exclusionary criteria for an LD diagnosis (APA, 2000) is troubling to me as it goes against
current empirical evidence that suggests that there is little evidence to support exclusionary
criteria based on lack of opportunity to learn or social disadvantage (Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes,
2003). Both groups experience low academic achievement, despite having a difference in causes.
However, these criteria exist for decision-making purposes regarding access to services and

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

funds, not because of their validity for classification purposes. This does not change the fact that
I find it unsettling.
The majority of LDs are not yet well studied, with the exception of the area of decoding
(dyslexia) in Reading Disorder. The variability that exists in LDs and the measurement of such
complex areas of learning is not easily undertaken and the lack of agreement on their definition
further complicates matters. However, it is known that LDs are neurologically based disorders.
Individuals with LDs show different patterns of brain activation and differences in brain structure
compared to those without LDs. Early identification and intervention efforts are showing
promising results for dyslexia and there are some initial studies that show support for
intervention efforts changing the localization of brain activity. This suggests the importance of
the influence of learning on brain activity, which I believe identifies an area of change that must
be addressed in the current diagnostic criteria (i.e. removing poor instruction from the
exclusionary criteria). The role of instruction in the development of LDs needs to be further
explored. There is also a genetic component to LDs as children with parents who have reading
difficulties are at a higher risk of having a RD than the general population. Thus, both genetic
and environmental influences are likely to be involved in the formation of the necessary neural
networks to be a successful reader, meaning that both can influence the emergence of learning
difficulties.
Effective interventions for RD need to target change within the child and within the
environment, but also need to evoke change in attitudes of significant others towards the child
and the childs attitude toward his/herself. That these individuals are of average to above average
intelligence (Macdonald, 2011) needs to be stressed, and I appreciate the power of sharing this
information with students and their families. Giving them this understanding, combined with the

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

fact that they learn differently, which contributes to their lack of progress with traditional
classroom instruction, is key to changing the attitude of the child and those involved in their
education. Motivation issues that have likely arisen from repeated academic difficulties and
failure can start to be reversed, which I feel is critical to their success in learning and utilizing
compensatory strategies.
While I was hoping that there would be more empirical knowledge in the area of LDs, I
was not surprised to learn that there is still so much to be explored. Questions remain for me
regarding the efficacy of treatments, and the ages that are ideal for these treatments. Is there an
age where these interventions would no longer be efficacious (and what is the role of
neuroplasticity in this?)? If we are currently waiting for children to show a deficit in
performance, might we be waiting too long, thus reducing their likelihood for success? Is our
approach contributing to the negative outcomes these individuals are at risk for? All of these
potential factors and concerns speak to the need for a change in our current way of identifying
and addressing learning problems.
Critical Analysis
As a teacher, my greatest goal is to help my students further their learning, particularly
those who experience academic or social difficulties. Thus, when I encounter a student who is
really struggling in particular areas, I want the concern addressed as quickly as possible so that I
can change my practice and implement strategies that will be efficacious for that student. The
more time I take trying to figure out what is going on is time taken away from implementing
effective strategies, and from the other students in the class. While I do not necessarily agree
with the coding of students (and look forward to the changes that will be happening in our school
board over the next few years), I recognize that I am biased towards wanting a code given so that

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

these students can receive the additional support they need. This support will likely mean the
difference between a positive and successful educational experience and a long, hard journey that
will have ripple effects outside of their school success. While I know that a shift away from
coding was talked about before I went off on leave last year, it was not clear at the level of the
teacher how they were going to implement such a change and what it would be replaced with. I
am curious to see what has changed when I return next fall.
In an ideal worldwithout financial and time constraintsfull psycho-educational
assessments would be completed with all students so that we could better conceptualize the
individual learners that they are. With our school boards focus on differentiated learning for all
students, it seems necessary to have this information in order to be able to create an effective
learning environment for each of our students. How do we know how to structure their learning
environments and provide opportunities best suited to them without such knowledge? That a
child does or does not qualify for a diagnosis of a LD is really irrelevant for me. The insight that
is provided by a psychologist into the learning processes of the child is what is important. With
this information, effective interventions can target specific areas, allowing one to teach to the
childs strengths, which in turn can help improve their motivation and directly influence their
achievement. I feel that so much time is lost for struggling students each year they fall farther
behind to meet the discrepancy required for funding, and with waitlists so long. I do not possess
the skills or training of a psychologist, and am responsible for delivering what can be viewed as
an overwhelming curriculum for the length of the school year. In learning more about the
identification of these disorders and their interventions, I can be as proactive, systematic and
effective as possible in my approach with these students to help identify and address their
learning needs. I recognize my limitations and know that the content devoted to special

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

education in my Bachelor of Education degree was insufficient to effectively teach the

heterogeneous group that enters my classroom every fall. I wish that I had more time to give
each of them the extra attention they need, but the reality is that I dont. With the nonexistent
support that is the reality of my classroom most years, entering into this program and taking this
class (among the others I will take over the next few years) will give me the skills needed to
improve my approach with my students, particularly those who are struggling.
I do not like the deficit approach to LD that currently exists in our board and that is
required for a formal diagnosis. That children must fail before receiving services makes no sense
to me. Not only are they falling further behind their classmates, but this is also likely to have a
negative impact on their motivation and self-esteem and put them at a further (academic and
social) disadvantage and will likely interfere with the effectiveness of future interventions.
I felt that my limited knowledge and lack of relevant experiences prior to this course
hindered my ability to participate in class discussions this term, but were invaluable in helping
me transfer this new knowledge to applied settings. For me, this course marks the beginning of
my learning about LDs and the other disorders of learning and behavior. My newfound
appreciation of the complexities involved in LDs shows me just how much I have left to learn,
but my improved understanding of LDs (e.g., etiology, developmental course) will help me in my
discussions with parents to help them understand their childs learning problems. This greater
appreciation also helped clarify for me how I can assist the professionals looking into the
learning problems of my students. I understand and appreciate the limited time facing all parties
involved in students learning and with an increased understanding of the assessment process, I
can contribute more relevant information to aid in this process.
Professional Plan

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

Funding will continue to be an issue in the public school board, and there will always be
a waitlist for assessment. The changes that will be happening in the school board over the next
few years are sure to result in big changes for teachers and students alike, but as a teacher, I must
take it upon myself now to learn as much as I can about the identification of and interventions for
LDs (and other disorders) so that I can best support these children. Enrolling in the School and
Applied Child Psychology Program was part of my professional development plan so that I can
become as effective a teacher as possible.
In addition to the knowledge I will gain in this program over the next four years, I plan to
take the advice of a previous professor who chose to follow one relevant journal faithfully. He
acknowledged the time constraints we are all under, and suggested reading the abstracts in this
journal to identify the most relevant articles to read. With my newfound appreciation of the
complexities of LDs, I have decided to follow Learning Disability Quarterly and the Journal of
Learning Disabilities to remain informed of new developments in this area and to help keep my
knowledge current.
Having just learned about Response to Intervention (RTI), I plan to do some research into
it over the winter break. Though I know little of the specifics at this point, I am excited that it
seems to implement a proactive approach to helping children with learning difficulties. I
especially appreciate the focus on early intervention and training in instructional interventions. I
am currently frustrated by the lack of a school-wide approach to reading and writing instruction
and feel that the disconnect between the material covered and the approaches used across grade
levels exacerbates difficulties for struggling students. Student achievement could greatly benefit
from teacher training in these interventions, and, without knowing specifics, I would hazard a

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

10

guess that at least some of these strategies would benefit all students as they would essentially be
good teaching.
Each spring I attend the Calgary Teachers Convention, and when the sessions are posted
each winter I seek out sessions related to special education. In addition, the University of
Calgary and the Calgary Board of Education both send notifications via email regarding
upcoming lectures, presentations and sessions and I always keep an eye out for those related to
not only LD, but other special education topics as well as I recognize that this is an important
area for my personal and professional growth. Lastly, I intend on signing up for a DSM-5 session
when it is released in 2013 to learn of the changes from the current edition.
Only having just begun my work in the Masters of School and Applied Child
Psychology Program, I am eager to further my knowledge of learning and cognition and the
assessment process through the courses and practicum placements that are yet to come. As in
each of my previous degrees, I find the class material informative, but it is through the sharing of
actual experiences and gaining my own experiences in the practicum placements that I find it all
comes together. As such, I acknowledge that my knowledge of the assessment of learning
difficulties and the diagnosis of LDs is only just beginning.

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

11
References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2003). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A.
Barkley (Eds.), Child Psychopathology, 2nd edition. (pp. 520-586). New York: Guilford
Press.

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

12
APSY 651 Final Exam Section 2

As an educator, my goal is to help my students improve their learning to the best of my

ability. Each year, I have at least one child in my classroom who has been diagnosed with
ADHD, or who is awaiting an assessment, and these students present a unique challenge for me
in maintaining their engagement and furthering their knowledge in a way that is suited to their
learning needs. Thus, I chose to explore ADHD because of the direct impact on my teaching
career and the influence on the education of my future students. I chose to compare this disorder
with Learning Disorders (LD) because of my lack of familiarity with them. Though I am likely to
encounter it frequently over the course of my teaching career, I have yet to have a student with a
diagnosed LD. However, I have had many struggling students, and regardless of the presence or
absence of a diagnosis, they would all benefit from my increased familiarity with learning
difficulties. It is only with my increased knowledge that I can better understand the learning
process and learning deficits so that I can ensure I am using systematic and efficacious
instruction and intervention in my teaching practice.
Identification of Disorders
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity are the three behavioral components that
characterize ADHD. These individuals experience significant impairment in life functioning as a
result of these behaviors being present in excess of what is consistent for their developmental
level (APA, 2000). ADHD is thought to affect 3-7% of school-age children (APA, 2000), and
though a male-to-female ratio of 3:1 has been reported (APA, 2000), this is likely the result of
diagnostic issues. Multiple etiologies are thought to contribute to ADHD, with neurological and
genetic factors likely playing the largest role (Barkley, 2003). ADHD is found in all levels of

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

13

SES around the world, and frequently co-occurs with many other disorders (e.g., CD,
depression). As such, these individuals are at increased risk for a variety of negative
developmental, social and health outcomes, including marital problems and substance use.
Children are generally diagnosed with one of three subtypes: Predominantly Inattentive
(ADHD-PI), Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive (ADHD-PHI), or Combined (ADHD-C).
Individuals with ADHD-PI may be described as sluggish, withdrawn and hypoactive and
experience impairments in speed of information processing and selective attention. With
difficulty sustaining attention and persisting at tasks, these children are often identified as having
poor productivity in school. Conversely, those with ADHD-PHI are described as having
excessive levels of activity. They are often described as noisy, disruptive and immature, and have
difficulty sitting when required, refraining from interrupting the activities of others, stopping
ongoing behaviors and delaying gratification. Those with the third subtype, ADHD-C, meet both
inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity criteria, while a fourth subtype, ADHD-Not Otherwise
Specified (ADHD-NOS), exists for cases with onset after the cut-off of age seven required for
the other subtypes, or where the symptoms do not meet the previously stated criteria.
For those with ADHD-PHI, issues with inhibition begin to emerge in the preschool years
(ages 3-4), followed by inattentive symptoms in the first few years of schooling (ages 5-7).
Symptoms associated with ADHD-PI may appear even later, from ages 8-10 (Barkley, 2003).
While hyperactive-impulsive symptoms tend to appear first, they are also seen to decline with
age. Conversely, inattentive behaviors, though emerging later, remain fairly stable throughout
elementary school (Barkley, 2003). These trends may be the result of the age range for which
these behaviors are more characteristic, or may reflect their appearance in separate stages of
development. Regardless, the change in symptom presentation may result in a change in the

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

14

subtype diagnosed, or a removal of the diagnosis. Though numerous theories of ADHD have
been put forward, it is currently believed that poor behavioral inhibition plays a central role in
ADHD and influences four other executive functions (working memory, internalization of
speech, self-regulation of affect, reconstitution). In turn, these functions influence self-regulation
and motor control (Barkley, 2003).
Learning Disorders (LD)
A diagnosis of a Learning Disorder is given when a childs achievement in math, reading
or written expression is substantially lower than expected based on age, level of intelligence and
schooling (APA, 2000). Low self-esteem and social skill impairments are commonly associated
with LDs, as are impairments in visual perception, attention, memory and linguistic processes
(APA, 2000). Prevalence rates are estimated between 2 and 10% of school-age children (APA,
2000), with approximately 80% of these cases having a diagnosis of a Reading Disorder (RD;
Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003).
RD (sometimes referred to as dyslexia) is one of the four subtypes of LDs identified in
the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) and has been the most widely studied, with the majority of
empirical literature being based on individuals with RD. Specifically, those individuals whose
deficits are characterized by an impairment of word decoding skills, commonly the result of a
phonological processing deficiency, are most well known. To receive a diagnosis of a RD,
reading achievement, as measured by accuracy or comprehension, is significantly discrepant
considering age, intelligence and age-appropriate education (APA, 2000), and this deficit must
result in significant interference in reading skills (school achievement or daily functioning). RD
commonly co-occurs with a Disorder of Written Expression and Mathematics Disorder.

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

15

Learning Disorder is a neurologically based disorder, where organization in neural

pathways is lacking. Individuals with RD have brains that are structured and work differently
from those without these disorders, resulting in these individuals being inefficient learners who
benefit from direct instruction. As the majority of research studies on LDs have focused on
Reading Disorder (RD), the following discussion of LD is based on the evidence gathered from
these empirical findings.
Statistics on the co-occurrence of ADHD and LD vary, with some estimates of 16-39% of
children with ADHD having co-occurring RD (Barkley, 2003), while others place the number
higher, from 20-50% of children with a RD have co-occurring ADHD (Semrud-Clikeman, 2005).
This discrepancy can likely to be attributed to methodological differences (e.g., definitions, cutoffs).
Critical Comparison
Similarities
ADHD and LD are neurologically based and are thus lifelong disorders. Both are
associated with increased prevalence among first-degree relatives of those with these diagnoses,
indicating a genetic component as well. In both cases, numerous theories have been put forward,
but it is unlikely that any one theory can sufficiently account for such complex disorders. In
addition, both disorders are associated with a variety of negative outcomes (e.g., academic and
employment performance, social adjustment difficulties), however, with effective intervention
these individuals can develop and utilize compensatory strategies, leading to an improved
prognosis as compared to those without interventions.
While ADHD and LD appear to have a higher prevalence rate among boys than girls, in
both cases there may be diagnostic issues leading to this gender discrepancy. The field trial for

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

16

ADHD consisted almost exclusively of males, and was not adjusted for gender. In the case of
LDs, this difference may be accounted for by a referral bias in that males often display more
disruptive behaviors accompanying LDs than do females. As both are neurological disorders it is
likely that there is an explanation for these gender discrepancies and that true prevalence rates do
not vary so drastically by gender.
Both ADHD and LD are associated with processing issues, and performance on some
measures of verbal working memory has been found to be impaired for both (Lyon, Fletcher, &
Barnes, 2003). However, it is possible that these deficits result from separate deficits. It is
currently hypothesized that the internalization of speech is impaired in ADHD, while language
ability may be impaired in those with a reading disability (Barkley, 2003). Situational variables
affect the presentation of both LD and ADHD. Where children with a LD benefit from increased
time and direct strategy instruction (Macdonald, 2011), there are several factors that influence
the performance of those with ADHD, including time of day, level of stimulation, availability of
reinforcement, task complexity and duration, and supervision (Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003).
Consequently, both populations require modified instruction and persistent interventions to
improve prognosis.
Areas of Divergence
Though other LDs have not been as well explored, deficits in phonological awareness are
associated with RD and not with ADHD. Whereas this deficit is consistently associated with the
word-level reading difficulties inherent in RD, there is more variance associated with ADHD,
with a primary deficit in executive functions having been identified. Conversely, deficits in
attention shifting and decreased persistence are characteristic of ADHD and distinguish it from
LD. Contrary to the social problems resulting from the impulsivity associated with ADHD,

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

17

individuals with LDs experience different social problems. Often they have difficulties
expressing themselves and understanding social communication, thus leading to the making of
social errors, which they tend to not know how to fix (Macdonald, 2011). While ADHD (and not
LD) frequently co-occurs with oppositional and conduct problems, it is likely that these acts are
related to the impulsivity that is inherent in ADHD.
Diagnostic challenges
That standardized measures are not representative of the reading requirements in the
classroom or in daily lifebut are required for a RD diagnosisstresses the need for a
comprehensive assessment, including a variety of measures (e.g., interviews, observations,
informal assessments). For both RD and ADHD (and assessments in general), one must consider
the possible environmental effects (school, home, community) on the presenting problems.
Children do not exist in a vacuumthey influence and are influenced by their
environment. Is it not sufficient to identify a particular deficit to make a diagnosis; one must
explore the potential underlying factors contributing to the problems. I believe that the role of
instruction in the presentation of academic and behavioral difficulties must be considered, as
ineffective instruction can lead to both academic difficulties and behavior problems. It may be
the case that these presentations are not the result of a LD or ADHD but rather a reflection of
ineffective instruction. Similarly, the instructional environment must also be considered, as the fit
of the child in his/her classroom (i.e. combination of teaching and learning styles) may be
contributing to their lack of performance and their behavioral difficulties, and the presenting
behavior problems may also be stemming from a lack of achievement. Finally, motivational
factors may also play a role, as a result of decreased engagement in the classroom and learning
activities or as the result of continued academic difficulties. It is vital to explore these factors that

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

18

could potentially be at the root of academic and behavioral difficulties and not assume that these
presenting behaviors are necessarily a RD or ADHD.
That instruction is listed as an exclusionary criterion for LDs is troubling to me, as I
believe that the ability to learn academic skills is heavily reliant on the ability of the people
teaching them. How can a student be expected to learn to read or write properly if taught poorly?
Little evidence exists to support this exclusionary criterion (Lyon, Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003) and
this highlights the need for a change in the diagnostic criteria. Both groups experience low
academic achievement, despite having a difference in underlying cause. Financial implications
that accompany certain diagnoses should not be involved in their definition.
Children with ADHD are at risk for internalizing and externalizing disorders, and the
identification of ADHD in girls is often made more difficult by the fact that symptoms of
internalizing or learning problems (possibly a result of coping with their ADHD) may mask the
diagnostic symptoms of ADHD (Macdonald, 2011). Conversely, the persistent difficulties
experienced by children with RD may be compounded not only by the need for a discrepancy
between their achievement and IQ to qualify for a diagnosis and extra learning support, but by
the associated behavior problems that might result from continued academic failure. Assessments
for LDs typically dont happen until mid-elementary when the child has been struggling for a
few years years that are critical to reading development. This persistence of failure may begin
to affect their motivation to achieve (thus leading to the behavior problems and hindering future
intervention efforts), resulting in continued impairment and a greater risk for academic failure.
While the majority of children with a Learning Disability are diagnosed with a RD (Lyon,
Fletcher, & Barnes, 2003), reading is a part of almost all academic subjects, particularly as
children progress through the grades. Thus, the longer a reading problem is present, the more

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

19

likely it is that this difficulty will interfere with other subject areas. Mathematics Disorder and
Disorders of Written Expression commonly co-occur with RD, underscoring the importance of a
full assessment in identifying all areas of impaired learning. When a reading deficit is suspected,
it is not sufficient to probe only decoding, fluency and comprehension skills, but we must look
deeper at language, attention, visuospatial processing, working memory, and other executive
functions, as some or all of these can be contributing to reading difficulties and other academic
(and social) difficulties.
Controversy exists with regards to the classification and diagnosis of both RD and
ADHD. The field has not established a unified definition of LDs (Zera & Lucian, 2001) and
debate exists as to the specific types of reading difficulties that exist (e.g., whether fluency
impairments are separate from those of decoding or comprehension). Debate also exists as to
whether the subtypes of ADHD are really subtypes, or if ADHD-PHI and ADHD-C are rather
two stages along the same developmental pathway. Additionally, it has been proposed that
ADHD-PI may actually be a separate disorder entirely from ADHD.
The complexities inherent in a concept so multifaceted as LD, and the heterogeneity that
can exist and still lead to a diagnosis of LD, are not easily encompassed in diagnostic categories.
That ADHD is treated as both a developmental disorder (i.e. individuals must be compared to
their same-age peers) and as a static condition (i.e. fixed symptom cut-offs) is also problematic.
Addressing these diagnostic issues will help enhance the accuracy of our identification of
individuals with these disorders. In turn, the more accurate identification of these individuals will
aid future research efforts in developing our understanding of these disorders.
Summary

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

20

ADHD and LD are complex neurologically and genetically based disorders that
commonly present in the classroom. The influence of these disorders has lasting effects that
stretch well beyond the classroom and academic success, impacting the vocational and personal
facets of life for these individuals as well. These pervasive difficulties speak to the importance of
the accurate identification of and effective intervention for these disorders. While research has
contributed much to our understanding up to this point, these efforts have also identified issues
with our current definitions and classification and these issues need to be addressed so that we
can more accurately identify afflicted individuals. This improved identification will help further
our understanding of LD and ADHD so that the most efficacious interventions can be developed,
empirically tested and implemented to decrease the negative effects associated with these
disorders as much as possible.

APSY 651 FINAL EXAM

21
References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barkley, R. A. (2003). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley
(Eds.), Child Psychopathology, 2nd edition. (pp. 75-143). New York: Guilford Press.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2003). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A.
Barkley (Eds.), Child Psychopathology, 2nd edition. (pp. 520-586). New York: Guilford
Press.
Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2005). Neuropsychological aspects for evaluating learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 563-568. doi: 10.1177/00222194050380061301
Zera, D. A., & Lucian, D. G. (2001). Self-organization and learning disabilities: A theoretical
perspective for the interpretation and understanding of dysfunction. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 24, 107-118. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511067