TY - JOUR
T1 - A Logical and Empirical Analysis of Current Practice in Classifying Students as Handicapped
AU - Ysseldyke, James
AU - Algozzine, Bob
AU - Epps, Susan
PY - 1983/10
Y1 - 1983/10
N2 - The major criterion for classification systems is that students said to evidence any specific handicapping condition must demonstrate at least one universal and one specific characteristic. We conducted two investigations, using the category “learning disabilities” as an example, to examine the extent to which this criterion is met. In the first study, we demonstrated that 85% of 248 3rd-, 5th-, and 12th- grade students identified as normal could be classified as learning disabled. In a second investigation, we contrasted low-achieving students enrolled in regular fourth-grade classes with students labeled as learning disabled (LD). Analysis of these data indicated that 88% of the low-achieving sample could be identified as LD and that 4% of the LD sample did not meet any of the criteria for classification as LD. We found no specific characteristics that differentiated the groups. Implications for classification practices in general and for serving students who are failing in school are discussed.
AB - The major criterion for classification systems is that students said to evidence any specific handicapping condition must demonstrate at least one universal and one specific characteristic. We conducted two investigations, using the category “learning disabilities” as an example, to examine the extent to which this criterion is met. In the first study, we demonstrated that 85% of 248 3rd-, 5th-, and 12th- grade students identified as normal could be classified as learning disabled. In a second investigation, we contrasted low-achieving students enrolled in regular fourth-grade classes with students labeled as learning disabled (LD). Analysis of these data indicated that 88% of the low-achieving sample could be identified as LD and that 4% of the LD sample did not meet any of the criteria for classification as LD. We found no specific characteristics that differentiated the groups. Implications for classification practices in general and for serving students who are failing in school are discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0020840196&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0020840196&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/001440298305000207
DO - 10.1177/001440298305000207
M3 - Article
C2 - 6228431
AN - SCOPUS:0020840196
SN - 0014-4029
VL - 50
SP - 160
EP - 166
JO - Exceptional children
JF - Exceptional children
IS - 2
ER -